Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review and economic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 85% of all women during pregnancy, but for the majority self-management suffices. For the remainder, symptoms are more severe and the most severe form of NVP - hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) - affects 0.3-1.0% of pregnant women. There is no widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for NVP and HG. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, Conference Proceedings Index, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched from inception to September 2014. References from studies and literature reviews identified were also examined. Obstetric Medicine was hand-searched, as were websites of relevant organisations. Costs came from NHS sources. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for effectiveness, and population-based case series for adverse events and fetal outcomes. Treatments: vitamins B6 and B12, ginger, acupressure/acupuncture, hypnotherapy, antiemetics, dopamine antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists, intravenous (i.v.) fluids, corticosteroids, enteral and parenteral feeding or other novel treatment. Two reviewers extracted data and quality assessed studies. Results were narratively synthesised; planned meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity and incomplete reporting. A simple economic evaluation considered the implied values of treatments. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies (75 reports) met the inclusion criteria. For RCTs, 33 and 11 studies had a low and high risk of bias respectively. For the remainder (n = 20) it was unclear. The non-randomised studies (n = 9) were low quality. There were 33 separate comparators. The most common were acupressure versus placebo (n = 12); steroid versus usual treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 6); ginger versus vitamin B6 (n = 6); and vitamin B6 versus placebo (n = 4). There was evidence that ginger, antihistamines, metoclopramide (mild disease) and vitamin B6 (mild to severe disease) are better than placebo. Diclectin® [Duchesnay Inc.; doxylamine succinate (10 mg) plus pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg) slow release tablet] is more effective than placebo and ondansetron is more effective at reducing nausea than pyridoxine plus doxylamine. Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin for women at high risk of severe NVP recurrence reduces risk of moderate/severe NVP compared with taking Diclectin once symptoms begin. Promethazine is as, and ondansetron is more, effective than metoclopramide for severe NVP/HG. I.v. fluids help correct dehydration and improve symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at reducing nausea than normal saline. Transdermal clonidine patches may be effective for severe HG. Enteral feeding is effective but extreme method treatment for very severe symptoms. Day case management for moderate/severe symptoms is feasible, acceptable and as effective as inpatient care. For all other interventions and comparisons, evidence is unclear. The economic analysis was limited by lack of effectiveness data, but comparison of costs between treatments highlights the implications of different choices. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available. CONCLUSION: There was evidence of some improvement in symptoms for some treatments, but these data may not be transferable across disease severities. Methodologically sound and larger trials of the main therapies considered within the UK NHS are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006642. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Treatments for Hyperemesis Gravidarum and Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Nausea and vomiting affects approximately 85% of pregnant women. The most severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects up to 3% of women and can have significant adverse physical and psychological sequelae. Objective: To summarize current evidence on effective treatments for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. Evidence Review: Databases were searched to June 8, 2016. Relevant websites and bibliographies were also searched. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Results were narratively synthesized; planned meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of findings. Findings: Seventy-eight studies (n = 8930 participants) were included: 67 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 11 nonrandomized studies. Evidence from 35 RCTs at low risk of bias indicated that ginger, vitamin B6, antihistamines, metoclopramide (for mild symptoms), pyridoxine-doxylamine, and ondansetron (for moderate symptoms) were associated with improved symptoms compared with placebo. One RCT (n = 86) reported greater improvements in moderate symptoms following psychotherapy (change in Rhodes score [range, 0 {no symptoms} to 40 {worst possible symptoms}], 18.76 [SD, 5.48] to 7.06 [SD, 5.79] for intervention vs 19.18 [SD, 5.63] to 12.81 [SD, 6.88] for comparator [P < .001]). For moderate-severe symptoms, 1 RCT (n = 60) suggested that pyridoxine-doxylamine combination taken preemptively reduced risk of recurrence of moderate-severe symptoms compared with treatment once symptoms begin (15.4% vs 39.1% [P < .04]). One RCT (n = 83) found that ondansetron was associated with lower nausea scores on day 4 than metoclopramide (mean visual analog scale [VAS] score, 4.1 [SD, 2.9] for ondansetron vs 5.7 [SD, 2.3] for metoclopramide [P = .023]) but not episodes of emesis (5.0 [SD, 3.1] vs 3.3 [SD, 3], respectively [P = .013]). Although there was no difference in trend in nausea scores over the 14-day study period, trend in vomiting scores was better in the ondansetron group (P = .042). One RCT (n = 159) found no difference between metoclopramide and promethazine after 24 hours (episodes of vomiting, 1 [IQR, 0-5] for metoclopramide vs 2 [IQR, 0-3] for promethazine [P = .81], VAS [0-10 scale] for nausea, 2 [IQR, 1-5] vs 2 [IQR, 1-4], respectively [P = .99]). Three RCTs compared corticosteroids with placebo or promethazine or metoclopramide in women with severe symptoms. Improvements were seen in all corticosteroid groups, but only a significant difference between corticosteroids vs metoclopramide was reported (emesis reduction, 40.9% vs 16.5% at day 2; 71.6% vs 51.2% at day 3; 95.8% vs 76.6% at day 7 [n = 40, P < .001]). For other interventions, evidence was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: For mild symptoms of nausea and emesis of pregnancy, ginger, pyridoxine, antihistamines, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. For moderate symptoms, pyridoxine-doxylamine, promethazine, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. Ondansetron was associated with improvement for a range of symptom severity. Corticosteroids may be associated with benefit in severe cases. Overall the quality of evidence was low.

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy--clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urethral stricture is a common cause of difficulty passing urine in men with prevalence of 0.5 %; about 62,000 men in the UK. The stricture is usually sited in the bulbar part of the urethra causing symptoms such as reduced urine flow. Initial treatment is typically by endoscopic urethrotomy but recurrence occurs in about 60% of men within 2 years. The best treatment for men with recurrent bulbar stricture is uncertain. Repeat endoscopic urethrotomy opens the narrowing but it usually scars up again within 2 years requiring repeated procedures. The alternative of open urethroplasty involves surgically reconstructing the urethra, which may need an oral mucosal graft. It is a specialist procedure with a longer recovery period but may give lower risk of recurrence. In the absence of firm evidence as to which is best, individual men have to trade off the invasiveness and possible benefit of each option. Their preference will be influenced by individual social circumstances, availability of local expertise and clinician guidance. The open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy (OPEN) trial aims to better guide the choice of treatment for men with recurrent urethral strictures by comparing benefit over 2 years in terms of symptom control and need for further treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: OPEN is a pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised trial. Men with recurrent bulbar urethral strictures (at least one previous treatment) will be randomised to undergo endoscopic urethrotomy or open urethroplasty. Participants will be followed for 24 months after randomisation, measuring symptoms, flow rate, the need for re-intervention, health-related quality of life, and costs. The primary clinical outcome is the difference in symptom control over 24 months measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of a validated score. The trial has been powered at 90% with a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 0.1 difference in AUC measured on a 0-1 scale. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomised (intention-to-treat). The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A qualitative study will assess willingness to be randomised and hence ability to recruit to the trial. DISCUSSION: The OPEN Trial seeks to clarify relative benefit of the current options for surgical treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture which differ in their invasiveness and resources required. Our feasibility study identified that participation would be limited by patient preference and differing recruitment styles of general and specialist urologists. We formulated and implemented effective strategies to address these issues in particular by inviting participation as close as possible to diagnosis. In addition re-calculation of sample size as recruitment progressed allowed more efficient design given the limited target population and funding constraints. Recruitment is now to target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN98009168 Date of registration: 29 November 2012.

Study protocol: longitudinal study of the transition of young people with complex health needs from child to adult health services.

BACKGROUND: Young people with complex health needs have impairments that can limit their ability to carry out day-to-day activities. As well as coping with other developmental transitions, these young people must negotiate the transfer of their clinical care from child to adult services. The process of transition may not be smooth and both health and social outcomes may suffer.Increasingly, policy-makers have recognised the need to ensure a smoother transition between children's and adult services, with processes that are holistic, individualised, and person-centred; however, there is little outcome data to support proposed models of care. This study aims to identify the features of transitional care that are potentially effective and efficient for young people with complex health needs making their transition. METHODS/DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. 450 young people aged 14 years to 18 years 11 months (with autism spectrum disorder and an additional mental health problem, cerebral palsy or diabetes) will be followed through their transition from child to adult services and will contribute data at baseline, 12, 24 and 36 months. We will collect data on: health and wellbeing outcomes (participation, quality of life, satisfaction with services, generic health status (EQ-5D-Y) and condition specific measure of disease control or management); exposure to proposed beneficial features of services (such as having a key worker, appropriate involvement of parents); socio-economic characteristics of the sample; use of condition-related health and personal social services; preferences for the characteristics of transitional care.We will us regression techniques to explore how outcomes vary by exposure to service features and by characteristics of the young people. These data will populate a decision-analytic model comparing the costs and benefits of potential alternative ways of organising transition services.In order to better understand mechanisms and aid interpretation, we will undertake qualitative work with 15 young people, including interviews, non-participant observation and diary collection. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effect of service components of transitional care, rather than evaluation of specific models that may be unsustainable or not generalisable. It has been developed in response to numerous national and international calls for such evaluation.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is increasingly used compared with a standard laparoscopic technique, but it remains uncertain whether potential benefits offset higher costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a care pathway description and model-based cost-utility analysis. We studied men with localised prostate cancer able to undergo either robotic or laparoscopic prostatectomy for cure. We used data from a meta-analysis, other published literature, and costs from the UK National Health Service and commercial sources. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Care received by men for 10 yr following radical prostatectomy was modelled. Clinical events, their effect on quality of life, and associated costs were synthesised assuming 200 procedures were performed annually. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Over 10 yr, robotic prostatectomy was on average (95% confidence interval [CI]) £1412 (€1595) (£1304 [€1473] to £1516 [€1713]) more costly than laparoscopic prostatectomy but more effective with mean (95% CI) gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.08 (0.01-0.15). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £18 329 (€20 708) with an 80% probability that robotic prostatectomy was cost effective at a threshold of £30 000 (€33 894)/QALY. The ICER was sensitive to the throughput of cases and the relative positive margin rate favouring robotic prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Higher costs of robotic prostatectomy may be offset by modest health gain resulting from lower risk of early harms and positive margin, provided >150 cases are performed each year. Considerable uncertainty persists in the absence of directly comparative randomised data.

Urinary incontinence in men after formal one-to-one pelvic-floor muscle training following radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate (MAPS): two parallel randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common immediately after prostate surgery. Men are often advised to do pelvic-floor exercises, but evidence to support this is inconclusive. Our aim was to establish if formal one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training reduces incontinence. METHODS: We undertook two randomised trials in men in the UK who were incontinent 6 weeks after radical prostatectomy (trial 1) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP; trial 2) to compare four sessions with a therapist over 3 months with standard care and lifestyle advice only. Randomisation was by remote computer allocation. Our primary endpoints, collected via postal questionnaires, were participants' reports of urinary incontinence and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 12 months. Group assignment was masked from outcome assessors, but this masking was not possible for participants or caregivers. We used intention-to-treat analyses to compare the primary outcome at 12 months. This study is registered, number ISRCTN87696430. FINDINGS: In the intervention group in trial 1, the rate of urinary incontinence at 12 months (148 [76%] of 196) was not significantly different from the control group (151 [77%] of 195; absolute risk difference [RD] -1·9%, 95% CI -10 to 6). In trial 2, the difference in the rate of urinary incontinence at 12 months (126 [65%] of 194) from the control group was not significant (125 [62%] of 203; RD 3·4%, 95% CI -6 to 13). Adjusting for minimisation factors or doing treatment-received analyses did not change these results in either trial. No adverse effects were reported. In both trials, the intervention resulted in higher mean costs per patient (£180 and £209 respectively) but we did not identify evidence of an economically important difference in QALYs (0·002 [95% CI -0·027 to 0·023] and -0·00003 [-0·026 to 0·026]). INTERPRETATION: In settings where information about pelvic-floor exercise is widely available, one-to-one conservative physical therapy for men who are incontinent after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost effective. The high rates of persisting incontinence after 12 months suggest a substantial unrecognised and unmet need for management in these men. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme.

Randomised trial of glutamine, selenium, or both, to supplement parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether inclusion of glutamine, selenium, or both in a standard isonitrogenous, isocaloric preparation of parenteral nutrition influenced new infections and mortality among critically ill patients. DESIGN: Randomised, double blinded, factorial, controlled trial. SETTING: Level 2 and 3 (or combined) critical care units in Scotland. All 22 units were invited, and 10 participated. PARTICIPANTS: 502 adults in intensive care units and high dependency units for ≥ 48 hours, with gastrointestinal failure and requiring parenteral nutrition. INTERVENTIONS: Parenteral glutamine (20.2 g/day) or selenium (500 µg/day), or both, for up to seven days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were participants with new infections in the first 14 days and mortality. An intention to treat analysis and a prespecified analysis of patients who received ≥ 5 days of the trial intervention are presented. Secondary outcomes included critical care unit and acute hospital lengths of stay, days of antibiotic use, and modified SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score. RESULTS: Selenium supplementation did not significantly affect patients developing a new infection (126/251 v 139/251, odds ratio 0.81 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.15)), except for those who had received ≥ 5 days of supplementation (odds ratio 0.53 (0.30 to 0.93)). There was no overall effect of glutamine on new infections (134/250 v 131/252, odds ratio 1.07 (0.75 to 1.53)), even if patients received ≥ 5 days of supplementation (odds ratio 0.99 (0.56 to 1.75)). Six month mortality was not significantly different for selenium (107/251 v 114/251, odds ratio 0.89 (0.62 to 1.29)) or glutamine (115/250 v 106/252, 1.18 (0.82 to 1.70)). Length of stay, days of antibiotic use, and modified SOFA score were not significantly affected by selenium or glutamine supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: The primary (intention to treat) analysis showed no effect on new infections or on mortality when parenteral nutrition was supplemented with glutamine or selenium. Patients who received parenteral nutrition supplemented with selenium for ≥ 5 days did show a reduction in new infections. This finding requires confirmation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87144826.

Surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement: cost effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate enlargement is cost effective. DESIGN: Care pathways describing credible treatment strategies were decided by consensus. Cost-utility analysis used Markov modelling and Monte Carlo simulation. DATA SOURCES: Clinical effectiveness data came from a systematic review and an individual level dataset. Utility values came from previous economic evaluations. Costs were calculated from National Health Service (NHS) and commercial sources. METHODS: The Markov model included parameters with associated measures of uncertainty describing health states between which individuals might move at three monthly intervals over 10 years. Successive annual cohorts of 25,000 men were entered into the model and the probability that treatment strategies were cost effective was assessed with Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations. RESULTS: A treatment strategy of initial diathermy vaporisation of the prostate followed by endoscopic holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in case of failure to benefit or subsequent relapse had an 85% probability of being cost effective at a willingness to pay value of pound20,000 (euro21,595, $28,686)/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Other strategies with diathermy vaporisation as the initial treatment were generally cheaper and more effective than the current standard of transurethral resection repeated once if necessary. The use of potassium titanyl phosphate laser vaporisation incurred higher costs and was less effective than transurethral resection, and strategies involving initial minimally invasive treatment with microwave thermotherapy were not cost effective. Findings were unchanged by wide ranging sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The outcome of this economic model should be interpreted cautiously because of the limitations of the data used. The finding that initial vaporisation followed by holmium laser enucleation for failure or relapse might be advantageous both to men with lower urinary tract symptoms and to healthcare providers requires confirmation in a good quality prospective clinical trial before any change in current practice. Potassium titanyl phosphate laser vaporisation was unlikely to be cost effective in our model, which argues against its unrestricted use until further evidence of effectiveness and cost reduction is obtained.

Alternative approaches to endoscopic ablation for benign enlargement of the prostate: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and risk profile of newer methods for endoscopic ablation of the prostate against the current standard of transurethral resection. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic and paper records in subject area up to March 2006. REVIEW METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials of endoscopic ablative interventions that included transurethral resection of prostate as one of the treatment arms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Meta-analyses of prespecified outcomes were done using fixed and random effects models and reported using relative risk or weighted mean difference. RESULTS: We identified 45 randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria and reporting on 3970 participants. The reports were of moderate to poor quality, with small sample sizes. None of the newer technologies resulted in significantly greater improvement in symptoms than transurethral resection at 12 months, although a trend suggested a better outcome with holmium laser enucleation (random effects weighted mean difference -0.82, 95% confidence interval 1.76 to 0.12) and worse outcome with laser vaporisation (1.49, -0.40 to 3.39). Improvements in secondary measures, such as peak urine flow rate, were consistent with change in symptoms. Blood transfusion rates were higher for transurethral resection than for the newer methods (4.8% v 0.7%) and men undergoing laser vaporisation or diathermy vaporisation were more likely to experience urinary retention (6.7% v 2.3% and 3.6% v 1.1%). Hospital stay was up to one day shorter for the newer technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Although men undergoing more modern methods of removing benign prostatic enlargement have similar outcomes to standard transurethral resection of prostate along with fewer requirements for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stay, the quality of current evidence is poor. The lack of any clearly more effective procedure suggests that transurethral resection should remain the standard approach.

Automated vs continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) with all forms of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) was performed to assess their comparative clinical effectiveness. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, were searched for relevant RCTs. Analysis was by a random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Three trials (139 patients) were identified. APD when compared to CAPD was found to have significantly lower peritonitis rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.83) and hospitalization rates (one trial, 82 patients, rate ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.93) but not exit-site infection rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.56-1.76). However no differences were detected between APD and CAPD in respect to risk of mortality (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51-4.37), peritonitis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50-1.11), switching from the original peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality to a different dialysis modality including an alternative form of PD (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-1.02), PD catheter removal (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.27-1.48) and hospital admissions (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43-2.17). Patients on APD were found to have significantly more time for work, family and social activities. CONCLUSIONS: APD appears to be more beneficial than CAPD, in terms of reducing peritonitis rates and with respect to certain social issues that impact on patients' quality of life. Further, adequately powered trials are required to confirm the benefits for APD found in this review and detect differences with respect to other clinically important outcomes that may have been missed by the trials included in this review due to their small size and short follow-up periods.

Randomised trial of glutamine and selenium supplemented parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients. Protocol Version 9, 19 February 2007 known as SIGNET (Scottish Intensive care Glutamine or seleNium Evaluative Trial).

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates in the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent hospital mortality rates in the UK remain high. Infections in Intensive Care are associated with a 2-3 times increased risk of death. It is thought that under conditions of severe metabolic stress glutamine becomes "conditionally essential". Selenium is an essential trace element that has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Approximately 23% of patients in Intensive Care require parenteral nutrition and glutamine and selenium are either absent or present in low amounts. Both glutamine and selenium have the potential to influence the immune system through independent biochemical pathways. Systematic reviews suggest that supplementing parenteral nutrition in critical illness with glutamine or selenium may reduce infections and mortality. Pilot data has shown that more than 50% of participants developed infections, typically resistant organisms. We are powered to show definitively whether supplementation of PN with either glutamine or selenium is effective at reducing new infections in critically ill patients. METHODS/DESIGN: 2 x 2 factorial, pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The trial has an enrollment target of 500 patients. Inclusion criteria include: expected to be in critical care for at least 48 hours, aged 16 years or over, patients who require parenteral nutrition and are expected to have at least half their daily nutritional requirements given by that route. Allocation is to one of four iso-caloric, iso-nitrogenous groups: glutamine, selenium, both glutamine & selenium or no additional glutamine or selenium. Trial supplementation is given for up to seven days on the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent wards if practicable. The primary outcomes are episodes of infection in the 14 days after starting trial nutrition and mortality. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: To date more than 285 patients have been recruited to the trial from 10 sites in Scotland. Recruitment is due to finish in August 2008 with a further six months follow up. We expect to report the results of the trial in summer 2009. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number system. ISRCTN87144826.

Effect of multivitamin and multimineral supplementation on cognitive function in men and women aged 65 years and over: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have frequently reported an association between cognitive function and nutrition in later life but randomised trials of B vitamins and antioxidant supplements have mostly found no beneficial effect. We examined the effect of daily supplementation with 11 vitamins and 5 minerals on cognitive function in older adults to assess the possibility that this could help to prevent cognitive decline. METHODS: The study was carried out as part of a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial of micronutrient supplementation based in six primary care health centres in North East Scotland. 910 men and women aged 65 years and over living in the community were recruited and randomised: 456 to active treatment and 454 to placebo. The active treatment consisted of a single tablet containing eleven vitamins and five minerals in amounts ranging from 50-210 % of the UK Reference Nutrient Intake or matching placebo tablet taken daily for 12 months. Digit span forward and verbal fluency tests, which assess immediate memory and executive functioning respectively, were conducted at the start and end of the intervention period. Risk of micronutrient deficiency at baseline was assessed by a simple risk questionnaire. RESULTS: For digit span forward there was no evidence of an effect of supplements in all participants or in sub-groups defined by age or risk of deficiency. For verbal fluency there was no evidence of a beneficial effect in the whole study population but there was weak evidence for a beneficial effect of supplementation in the two pre-specified subgroups: in those aged 75 years and over (n 290; mean difference between supplemented and placebo groups 2.8 (95% CI -0.6, 6.2) units) and in those at increased risk of micronutrient deficiency assessed by the risk questionnaire (n 260; mean difference between supplemented and placebo groups 2.5 (95% CI -1.0, 6.1) units). CONCLUSION: The results provide no evidence for a beneficial effect of daily multivitamin and multimineral supplements on these domains of cognitive function in community-living people over 65 years. However, the possibility of beneficial effects in older people and those at greater risk of nutritional deficiency deserves further attention.

A cost-utility analysis of multivitamin and multimineral supplements in men and women aged 65 years and over.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: As people age there is a progressive dysregulation of the immune system that may lead to an increased risk of infections, which may precipitate hospital admission in people with chronic heart or respiratory diseases. Mineral and vitamin supplementation in older people could therefore influence infections in older people. However, the evidence from the available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is mixed. The aim of the study was to assess the relative efficiency of multivitamin and multimineral supplementation compared with no supplementation. METHODS: Cost-utility analysis alongside an RCT. Participants aged 65 years or over from six general practices in Grampian, Scotland, were studied. They were randomised to one tablet daily of either a multivitamin and multimineral supplement or matching placebo. Exclusion criteria were use of mineral, vitamin or fish oil supplements in the previous 3 months (1 month for water soluble vitamins), vitamin B12 injection in the last 3 months. RESULTS: Nine hundred and ten participants were recruited (454 placebo and 456 supplementation). Use of health service resources and costs were similar between the two groups. The supplementation arm was more costly although this was not statistically significant ( pound15 per person, 95% CI-3.75 to 34.95). After adjusting for minimisation and baseline EQ-5D scores supplementation was associated with fewer QALYs per person (-0.018, 95% CI-0.04 to 0.002). It was highly unlikely that supplementation would be considered cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this study suggests that it is highly unlikely that supplementation could be considered cost effective.

Effect of multivitamin and multimineral supplements on morbidity from infections in older people (MAVIS trial): pragmatic, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether supplementation with multivitamins and multiminerals influences self reported days of infection, use of health services, and quality of life in people aged 65 or over. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo controlled trial, with blinding of participants, outcome assessors, and investigators. SETTING: Communities associated with six general practices in Grampian, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 910 men and women aged 65 or over who did not take vitamins or minerals. INTERVENTIONS: Daily multivitamin and multimineral supplementation or placebo for one year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were contacts with primary care for infections, self reported days of infection, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescriptions, hospital admissions, adverse events, and compliance. RESULTS: Supplementation did not significantly affect contacts with primary care and days of infection per person (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.19 and 1.07, 0.90 to 1.27). Quality of life was not affected by supplementation. No statistically significant findings were found for secondary outcomes or subgroups. CONCLUSION: Routine multivitamin and multimineral supplementation of older people living at home does not affect self reported infection related morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 66376460.