Hearing and vision rehabilitation for people with dementia in five European countries (SENSE-Cog): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of hearing and vision difficulties on the risk of developing dementia and worsening outcomes in people already living with dementia is well established. We evaluated the clinical impact of a hearing and vision rehabilitation and support programme on quality of life in people with mild-to-moderate dementia and concurrent sensory difficulties. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, multicentre, observer-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial in seven older adult clinics in five European countries (Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, and the UK). People with mild-to-moderate dementia with adult-acquired hearing difficulties, vision difficulties, or both were randomly assigned (1:1) along with their care partner to an 18-week home-basedsensory support intervention (SSI) of tailored hearing and vision rehabilitation and support, or to care as usual. Randomisation was blocked (block size of four, six, or eight) and stratified by country, with allocation assigned via a remote web-based system. The SSI included: full hearing assessment, vision assessment, or both; fitting of hearing aids, glasses, or other sensory aids; and home-based support from a sensory support therapist to assist adherence and uptake of sensory aids, foster social networking, and optimise the home sensory environment. Care as usual involved no additional intervention beyond services normally available to people with dementia at the respective sites. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (Dementia Quality of Life Instrument [DEMQoL]) score at 36 weeks, reported as an adjusted mean difference. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN17056211. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2018, and May 6, 2021, 252 people with mild-to-moderate dementia were randomly assigned, of whom 251 (n=126 in the SSI group and n=125 in the care as usual group) were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 79·6 years (SD 5·8), and 132 (53%) were women. After a median follow-up time of 37·7 weeks (IQR 36·2-39·0), the mean DEMQoL score was 92·8 (SD 15·2) in the SSI group and 92·8 (14·0) in the care as usual group (adjusted difference 0·18, 95% CI -2·13 to 2·30, p=0·87). Among 114 adverse events reported for 56 (44%) participants in the SSI group, ten events in nine participants were related or possibly related to the intervention (medical device pain or discomfort n=6, ear pain n=1, scratch to the ear n=1, sore eye n=1, redness n=1; all of grade 1). Serious adverse events were reported for 25 (20%) participants in the SSI group and 16 (13%) in the care as usual group. Six (5%) participants in the SSI group and five (4%) in the care as usual group died. None of the serious adverse events or deaths were related to the study intervention or procedures. INTERPRETATION: This study showed no improvement in quality in life in participants who received the intervention in the longer term. Sensory difficulties are common in people with dementia and interventions aimed at improving sensory-cognitive health should be explored further. FUNDING: EU Horizon 2020.

The Relational Approach to Treating Self-Harm (RELATE): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial study of cognitive analytic therapy for adults who self-harm versus treatment at usual.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is a prevalent behaviour that has a major detrimental impact on a person's life. Psychological therapies have the potential to help, but evidence of effective interventions remains limited. Access and acceptability of interventions can also be a significant challenge, with individuals either being unable to access help or having to endure long waiting lists. Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) is a time-limited and relationally-focused psychotherapy that may provide a valuable treatment option for people who self-harm. This protocol outlines the methodology for the first feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CAT for adults that self-harm. The trial will aim to determine the feasibility, acceptability and safety of undertaking larger-scale evaluations of CAT for self-harm within an RCT context. METHOD: An RCT design with 1:1 allocation to CAT plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU alone. Participants will be adult outpatients with three or more instances of self-harm in the past year (target sample of n = 60). CAT will be 8 one-to-one weekly 60-min sessions plus a follow-up session up to 8 weeks after the last session. Assessments will occur at baseline, 12 weeks and 18 weeks after randomisation. Qualitative interviews with participants will gain insights into the feasibility and acceptability of CAT. Feasibility outcomes will be judged against progression criteria. DISCUSSION: CAT may be an effective and accessible treatment option for people who self-harm, providing a more relationally orientated alternative to more behavioural therapies. The proposed feasibility RCT is an important first step in evaluating CAT as a treatment for self-harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was pre-registered (21/10/22) on ISR CTN (ISRCTN code: ISRCTN75661422).

Estimating the economic effect of harm associated with high risk prescribing of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in England: population based cohort and economic modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify prevalence, harms, and NHS costs in England of problematic oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing in high risk groups. DESIGN: Population based cohort and economic modelling study. SETTING: Economic models estimating patient harm associated with NSAID specific hazardous prescribing events, and cost to the English NHS, over a 10 year period, were combined with trends of hazardous prescribing event to estimate national levels of patient harm and NHS costs. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were prescribed oral NSAIDs and were in five high risk groups: older adults (≥65 years) with no gastroprotection; people who concurrently took oral anticoagulants; or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or a history of peptic ulcer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of hazardous prescribing events, by each event and overall, discounted quality adjusted life years (QALYs) lost, and cost to the NHS in England of managing harm. RESULTS: QALY losses and cost increases were observed for each hazardous prescribing event (v no hazardous prescribing event). Mean QALYs per person were between 0.01 (95% credibility interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.02) lower with history of peptic ulcer, to 0.11 (0.04 to 0.19) lower with chronic kidney disease. Mean cost increases ranged from a non-statistically significant £14 (€17; $18) (95% CI -£71 to £98) in heart failure, to a statistically significant £1097 (£236 to £2542) in people concurrently taking anticoagulants. Prevalence of hazardous prescribing events per 1000 patients ranged from 0.11 in people who have had a peptic ulcer to 1.70 in older adults. Nationally, the most common hazardous prescribing event (older adults with no gastroprotection) resulted in 1929 (1416 to 2452) QALYs lost, costing £2.46m (£0.65m to £4.68m). The greatest impact was in people concurrently taking oral anticoagulants: 2143 (894 to 4073) QALYs lost, costing £25.41m (£5.25m to £60.01m). Over 10 years, total QALYs lost were estimated to be 6335 (4471 to 8658) and an NHS cost for England of £31.43m (£9.28m to £67.11m). CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs continue to be a source of avoidable harm and healthcare cost in these five high risk populations, especially in inducing an acute event in people with chronic condition and people taking oral anticoagulants.

Multiple adverse outcomes associated with antipsychotic use in people with dementia: population based matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate risks of multiple adverse outcomes associated with use of antipsychotics in people with dementia. DESIGN: Population based matched cohort study. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital and mortality data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), England. POPULATION: Adults (≥50 years) with a diagnosis of dementia between 1 January 1998 and 31 May 2018 (n=173 910, 63.0% women). Each new antipsychotic user (n=35 339, 62.5% women) was matched with up to 15 non-users using incidence density sampling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, stratified by periods of antipsychotic use, with absolute risks calculated using cumulative incidence in antipsychotic users versus matched comparators. An unrelated (negative control) outcome of appendicitis and cholecystitis combined was also investigated to detect potential unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Compared with non-use, any antipsychotic use was associated with increased risks of all outcomes, except ventricular arrhythmia. Current use (90 days after a prescription) was associated with elevated risks of pneumonia (hazard ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10 to 2.28), acute kidney injury (1.72, 1.61 to 1.84), venous thromboembolism (1.62, 1.46 to 1.80), stroke (1.61, 1.52 to 1.71), fracture (1.43, 1.35 to 1.52), myocardial infarction (1.28, 1.15 to 1.42), and heart failure (1.27, 1.18 to 1.37). No increased risks were observed for the negative control outcome (appendicitis and cholecystitis). In the 90 days after drug initiation, the cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users was 4.48% (4.26% to 4.71%) versus 1.49% (1.45% to 1.53%) in the matched cohort of non-users (difference 2.99%, 95% CI 2.77% to 3.22%). CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. The range of adverse outcomes was wider than previously highlighted in regulatory alerts, with the highest risks soon after initiation of treatment.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of online recorded recovery narratives in improving quality of life for people with non-psychotic mental health problems: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Narratives describing first-hand experiences of recovery from mental health problems are widely available. Emerging evidence suggests that engaging with mental health recovery narratives can benefit people experiencing mental health problems, but no randomized controlled trial has been conducted as yet. We developed the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention, a web application providing self-guided and recommender systems access to a collection of recorded mental health recovery narratives (n=659). We investigated whether NEON Intervention access benefited adults experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems by conducting a pragmatic parallel-group randomized trial, with usual care as control condition. The primary endpoint was quality of life at week 52 assessed by the Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA). Secondary outcomes were psychological distress, hope, self-efficacy, and meaning in life at week 52. Between March 9, 2020 and March 26, 2021, we recruited 1,023 participants from across England (the target based on power analysis was 994), of whom 827 (80.8%) identified as White British, 811 (79.3%) were female, 586 (57.3%) were employed, and 272 (26.6%) were unemployed. Their mean age was 38.4±13.6 years. Mood and/or anxiety disorders (N=626, 61.2%) and stress-related disorders (N=152, 14.9%) were the most common mental health problems. At week 52, our intention-to-treat analysis found a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.01-0.26, p=0.041) in the MANSA score between the intervention and control groups, corresponding to a mean change of 1.56 scale points per participant, which indicates that the intervention increased quality of life. We also detected a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.05-0.40, p=0.014) between the groups in the score on the "presence of meaning" subscale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, corresponding to a mean change of 1.1 scale points per participant. We found an incremental gain of 0.0142 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% credible interval: 0.0059 to 0.0226) and a £178 incremental increase in cost (95% credible interval: -£154 to £455) per participant, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,526 per QALY compared with usual care. This was lower than the £20,000 per QALY threshold used by the National Health Service in England, indicating that the intervention would be a cost-effective use of health service resources. In the subgroup analysis including participants who had used specialist mental health services at baseline, the intervention both reduced cost (-£98, 95% credible interval: -£606 to £309) and improved QALYs (0.0165, 95% credible interval: 0.0057 to 0.0273) per participant as compared to usual care. We conclude that the NEON Intervention is an effective and cost-effective new intervention for people experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG. METHODS: Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years. CONCLUSION: While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: A subgroup analysis from the FLASH-UK study.

AIMS: The FLASH-UK trial showed lower HbA1c with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), as compared with self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%). Here, we present results from the pre-specified subgroup analysis for the 24-week HbA1c (primary outcome) and selected sensor-based secondary outcomes. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial. The difference in treatment effect between subgroups (baseline HbA1c [≤75 vs. >75 mmol/mol] [≤9.0 vs >9.0%], treatment modality [pump vs injections], prior participation in structured education, age, educational level, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, deprivation index quintile sex, ethnic group and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] detected depression category) were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six participants (females 44%, mean [SD] baseline HbA1c 71 [9] mmol/mol 8.6 [0.8%], age 44 [15]) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to isCGM (n = 78) or SMBG (n = 78). The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c (%) was 8.7 (0.9) in the isCGM group and 8.5 (0.8) in the SMBG group, lowering to 7.9 (0.8) versus 8.3 (0.9), respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.3; p < 0.001]. For HbA1c, there was no impact of treatment modality, prior participation in structured education, deprivation index quintile, sex or baseline depression category. The between-group difference in HbA1c was larger for younger people (a reduction of 2.7 [95% CI 0.3-5.0; p = 0.028] mmol/mol for every additional 15 years of age). Those with HbA1c 76-97 mmol/mol (>9.0%-11.0%) had a marginally non-significant higher reduction in HbA1c of 8.4 mmol/mol (3.3-13.5) compared to 3.1 (0.3-6.0) in those with HbA1c 58-75 mmol/mol (p = 0.08). For 'Time in range' (% 3.9-10 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those with at least a bachelor's degree. For 'Time below range' (% <3.9 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those using injections, older people and those with less than bachelor's degree. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring is generally effective across a range of baseline characteristics.

Organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, funding models, and unit costs of recovery colleges in 28 countries: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Recovery colleges were developed in England to support the recovery of individuals who have mental health symptoms or mental illness. They have been founded in many countries but there has been little international research on recovery colleges and no studies investigating their staffing, fidelity, or costs. We aimed to characterise recovery colleges internationally, to understand organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, and budget. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified all countries in which recovery colleges exist. We repeated a cross-sectional survey done in England for recovery colleges in 28 countries. In both surveys, recovery colleges were defined as services that supported personal recovery, that were coproduced with students and staff, and where students learned collaboratively with trainers. Recovery college managers completed the survey. The survey included questions about organisational and student characteristics, fidelity to the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, funding models, and unit costs. Recovery colleges were grouped by country and continent and presented descriptively. We used regression models to explore continental differences in fidelity, using England as the reference group. FINDINGS: We identified 221 recovery colleges operating across 28 countries, in five continents. Overall, 174 (79%) of 221 recovery colleges participated. Most recovery colleges scored highly on fidelity. Overall scores for fidelity (ß=-2·88, 95% CI 4·44 to -1·32; p=0·0001), coproduction (odds ratio [OR] 0·10, 95% CI 0·03 to 0·33; p<0·0001), and being tailored to the student (OR 0·10, 0·02 to 0·39; p=0·0010), were lower for recovery colleges in Asia than in England. No other significant differences were identified between recovery colleges in England, and those in other continents where recovery colleges were present. 133 recovery colleges provided data on annual budgets, which ranged from €0 to €2 550 000, varying extensively within and between continents. From included data, all annual budgets reported by the college added up to €30 million, providing 19 864 courses for 55 161 students. INTERPRETATION: Recovery colleges exist in many countries. There is an international consensus on key operating principles, especially equality and a commitment to recovery, and most recovery colleges achieve moderate to high fidelity to the original model, irrespective of the income band of their country. Cultural differences need to be considered in assessing coproduction and approaches to individualising support. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Differences Between Online Trial Participants Who Have Used Statutory Mental Health Services and Those Who Have Not: Analysis of Baseline Data From 2 Pragmatic Trials of a Digital Health Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are an established element of mental health service provision internationally. Regulators have positioned the best practice standard of evidence as an interventional study with a comparator reflective of standard care, often operationalized as a pragmatic trial. DHIs can extend health provision to those not currently using mental health services. Hence, for external validity, trials might openly recruit a mixture of people who have used mental health services and people who have not. Prior research has demonstrated phenomenological differences in mental health experience between these groups. Some differences between service users and nonservice users might influence the change created by DHIs; hence, research should systematically examine these differences to inform intervention development and evaluation work. This paper analyzes baseline data collected in the NEON (Narrative Experiences Online; ie, for people with experience of psychosis) and NEON-O (NEON for other [eg, nonpsychosis] mental health problems) trials. These were pragmatic trials of a DHI that openly recruited people who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. All participants were experiencing mental health distress. NEON Trial participants had experienced psychosis in the previous 5 years. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify differences in baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with specialist mental health service use for NEON Trial and NEON-O Trial participants. METHODS: For both trials, hypothesis testing was used to compare baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants in the intention-to-treat sample who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. Bonferroni correction was applied to significance thresholds to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: Significant differences in characteristics were identified in both trials. Compared with nonservice users (124/739, 16.8%), NEON Trial specialist service users (609/739, 82.4%) were more likely to be female (P<.001), older (P<.001), and White British (P<.001), with lower quality of life (P<.001) and lower health status (P=.002). There were differences in geographical distribution (P<.001), employment (P<.001; more unemployment), current mental health problems (P<.001; more psychosis and personality disorders), and recovery status (P<.001; more recovered). Current service users were more likely to be experiencing psychosis than prior service users. Compared with nonservice users (399/1023, 39%), NEON-O Trial specialist service users (614/1023, 60.02%) had differences in employment (P<.001; more unemployment) and current mental health problems (P<.001; more personality disorders), with lower quality of life (P<.001), more distress (P<.001), less hope (P<.001), less empowerment (P<.001), less meaning in life (P<.001), and lower health status (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mental health service use history was associated with numerous differences in baseline characteristics. Investigators should account for service use in work to develop and evaluate interventions for populations with mixed service use histories. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04428-6.

Statistical analysis plans for two randomised controlled trials of the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention: impact of receiving recorded mental health recovery narratives on quality of life in people experiencing psychosis (NEON) and people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O).

BACKGROUND: Mental health recovery narratives are a first-hand account of an individual's recovery from mental health distress, access to narratives can aid recovery. The NEON Intervention is a web-application providing access to a managed collection of narratives. We present the statistical analysis plan for assessing the effectiveness of the NEON Intervention in improving quality of life at 1-year post-randomisation. We pay particular focus on the statistical challenges encountered due to the online nature of this trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: The NEON Intervention is assessed in two trial populations, one for people with experience of psychosis in the last 5 years, and mental health distress in the last six months (NEON Trial) and one for people with experience of non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O Trial). Both NEON trials are two-arm randomised controlled superiority trials comparing the effectiveness of the NEON Intervention with usual care. The target sample size is 684 randomised participants for NEON and 994 for NEON-O. Participants were randomised centrally in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: The primary outcome is the mean score of subjective items on the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality-of-Life questionnaire (MANSA) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes are scores from the Herth Hope Index, Mental Health Confidence Scale, Meaning of Life questionnaire, CORE-10 questionnaire and Euroqol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L). CONCLUSION: This manuscript is the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the NEON trials. Any post hoc analysis, such as those requested by journal reviewers will be clearly labelled as such in the final trial reporting. Trial registration Both trials were prospectively registered. NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837, registered on 13 August 2018. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153, registered on 9 January 2020.

Evidence-based Recovery Colleges: developing a typology based on organisational characteristics, fidelity and funding.

PURPOSE: Recovery Colleges (RCs) have been implemented across England with wide variation in organisational characteristics. The purpose of this study is to describe RCs across England in terms of organisational and student characteristics, fidelity and annual spending, to generate a RC typology based on characteristics and to explore the relationship between characteristics and fidelity. METHODS: All RC in England meeting criteria on recovery orientation, coproduction and adult learning were included. Managers completed a survey capturing characteristics, fidelity and budget. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify common groupings and generate an RC typology. RESULTS: Participants comprised 63 (72%) of 88 RC in England. Fidelity scores were high (median 11, IQR 9-13). Both NHS and strengths-focussed RCs were associated with higher fidelity. The median annual budget was £200,000 (IQR £127,000-£300,000) per RC. The median cost per student was £518 (IQR £275-£840), cost per course designed was £5,556 (IQR £3,000-£9,416) and per course run was £1,510 (IQR £682-£3,030). The total annual budget across England for RCs is an estimated £17.6 m including £13.4 m from NHS budgets, with 11,000 courses delivered to 45,500 students. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of RCs had high levels of fidelity, there were sufficiently pronounced differences in other key characteristics to generate a typology of RCs. This typology might prove important for understanding student outcomes and how they are achieved and for commissioning decisions. Staffing and co-producing new courses are key drivers of spending. The estimated budget for RCs was less than 1% of NHS mental health spending.

Development and delivery cost of digital health technologies for mental health: Application to the Narrative Experiences Online Intervention.

Background: The increasing development and use of digital health interventions requires good quality costing information to inform development and commissioning choices about resource allocation decisions. The Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention is a web-application that delivers recorded mental health recovery narratives to its users. Two randomized controlled trials are testing the NEON Intervention in people with experience of psychosis (NEON) and people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O). Aim: This study describes and estimates the cost components and total cost of developing and delivering the NEON Intervention. Materials and methods: Total costs for the NEON Trial (739 participants) and NEON-O Trial (1,024 participants) were estimated by: identifying resource use categories involved in intervention development and delivery; accurate measurement or estimation of resource use; and a valuation of resource use to generate overall costs, using relevant unit costs. Resource use categories were identified through consultation with literature, costing reporting standards and iterative consultation with health researchers involved in NEON Intervention development and delivery. Sensitivity analysis was used to test assumptions made. Results: The total cost of developing the NEON Intervention was £182,851. The largest cost components were software development (27%); Lived Experience Advisory Panel workshops (23%); coding the narratives (9%); and researchers' time to source narratives (9%). The total cost of NEON Intervention delivery during the NEON Trial was £118,663 (£349 per NEON Intervention user). In the NEON-O Trial, the total delivery cost of the NEON Intervention was £123,444 (£241 per NEON Intervention user). The largest cost components include updating the narrative collection (50%); advertising (19%); administration (14%); and software maintenance (11%). Uncertainty in the cost of administration had the largest effect on delivery cost estimates. Conclusion: Our work shows that developing and delivering a digital health intervention requires expertise and time commitment from a range of personnel. Teams developing digital narrative interventions need to allocate substantial resources to curating narrative collections. Implications for practice: This study identifies the development and delivery resource use categories of a digital health intervention to promote the consistent reporting of costs and informs future decision-making about the costs of delivering the NEON Intervention at scale. Trial registration: NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837, registered 13 August 2018, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11152837. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153, registered 9 January 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN63197153.

Scaling-up a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER) to reduce hazardous prescribing in general practices: Multiple interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on a randomised trial demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER). We sought to investigate whether PINCER was effective in reducing hazardous prescribing when rolled out at scale in UK general practices. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a multiple interrupted time series design whereby successive groups of general practices received the PINCER intervention between September 2015 and April 2017. We used 11 prescribing safety indicators to identify potentially hazardous prescribing and collected data over a maximum of 16 quarterly time periods. The primary outcome was a composite of all the indicators; a composite for indicators associated with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was also reported, along with 11 individual indicators of hazardous prescribing. Data were analysed using logistic mixed models for the quarterly event numbers with the appropriate denominator, and calendar time included as a covariate. PINCER was implemented in 370 (94.1%) of 393 general practices covering a population of almost 3 million patients in the East Midlands region of England; data were successfully extracted from 343 (92.7%) of these practices. For the primary composite outcome, the PINCER intervention was associated with a decrease in the rate of hazardous prescribing of 16.7% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.86) at 6 months and 15.3% (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) at 12 months postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 26.4% (22,503 patients in the numerator/853,631 patients in the denominator) to 20.1% (11,901 patients in the numerator/591,364 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.1% (3,868 patients in the numerator/201,992 patients in the denominator). The greatest reduction in hazardous prescribing associated with the intervention was observed for the indicators associated with GI bleeding; for the GI composite indicator, there was a decrease of 23.9% at both 6 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80) and 12 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82) postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 31.4 (16,185 patients in the numerator/515,879 patients in the denominator) to 21.2% (7,607 patients in the numerator/358,349 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.5% (2,369 patients in the numerator/121,534 patients in the denominator). We adjusted for calendar time and practice, but since this was an observational study, the findings may have been influenced by unknown confounding factors or behavioural changes unrelated to the PINCER intervention. Data were also not collected for all practices at 6 months and 12 months postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: The PINCER intervention, when rolled out at scale in routine clinical practice, was associated with a reduction in hazardous prescribing by 17% and 15% at 6 and 12 months postintervention. The greatest reductions in hazardous prescribing were for indicators associated with risk of GI bleeding. These findings support the wider national rollout of PINCER in England.

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In persons with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the benefits of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels are uncertain. METHODS: In a parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving participants with type 1 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels between 7.5% and 11.0%, we investigated the efficacy of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring as compared with participant monitoring of blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing. The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 24 weeks, analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes included sensor data, participant-reported outcome measures, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (the intervention group, 78 participants) or to monitor their own blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing (the usual-care group, 78 participants). At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the participants was 44±15 years, and the mean duration of diabetes was 21±13 years; 44% of the participants were women. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.7±0.9% in the intervention group and 8.5±0.8% in the usual-care group; these levels decreased to 7.9±0.8% and 8.3±0.9%, respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean between-group difference, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to -0.3; P<0.001). The time per day that the glucose level was in the target range was 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7 to 13.3) higher or 130 minutes (95% CI, 68 to 192) longer in the intervention group than in the usual-care group, and the time spent in a hypoglycemic state (blood glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter [<3.9 mmol per liter]) was 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5) lower or 43 minutes (95% CI, 20 to 65) shorter in the intervention group. Two participants in the usual-care group had an episode of severe hypoglycemia, and 1 participant in the intervention group had a skin reaction to the sensor. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels resulted in significantly lower glycated hemoglobin levels than levels monitored by fingerstick testing. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; FLASH-UK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03815006.).

Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing in England (RECOLLECT): rationale and protocol.

BACKGROUND: Recovery Colleges are a relatively recent initiative within mental health services. The first opened in 2009 in London and since then numbers have grown. They are based on principles of personal recovery in mental health, co-production between people with lived experience of mental health problems and professionals, and adult learning. Student eligibility criteria vary, but all serve people who use mental health services, with empirical evidence of benefit. Previously we developed a Recovery College fidelity measure and a preliminary change model identifying the mechanisms of action and outcomes for this group, which we refer to as service user students. The Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) study is a five-year (2020-2025) programme of research in England. The aim of RECOLLECT is to determine Recovery Colleges' effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and identify organisational influences on fidelity and improvements in mental health outcomes.  METHODS: RECOLLECT comprises i) a national survey of Recovery Colleges, ii) a prospective cohort study to establish the relationship between fidelity, mechanisms of action and psychosocial outcomes, iii) a prospective cohort study to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, iv) a retrospective cohort study to determine the relationship between Recovery College use and outcomes and mental health service use, and v) organisational case studies to establish the contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and outcomes. The programme has been developed with input from individuals who have lived experience of mental health problems. A Lived Experience Advisory Panel will provide input into all stages of the research. DISCUSSION: RECOLLECT will provide the first rigorous evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges in England, to inform their prioritising, commissioning, and running. The validated RECOLLECT multilevel change model will confirm the active components of Recovery Colleges. The fidelity measure and evidence about the fidelity-outcome relationship will provide an empirically-based approach to develop Recovery Colleges, to maximise benefits for students. Findings will be disseminated through the study website (researchintorecovery.com/recollect) and via national and international Recovery College networks to maximise impact, and will shape policy on how Recovery Colleges can help those with mental health problems lead empowered, meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Does coprescribing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral anticoagulants increase the risk of major bleeding, stroke and systemic embolism?

AIMS: To examine the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, major bleeding, stroke and systemic embolism associated with prescribing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to adults receiving oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study in adults receiving OAC therapy using linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD) and hospital (Hospital Episodes Statistics) electronic health records. We used cause-specific Cox regression models with time-dependent NSAID treatment in a propensity score matched population to estimate the increased risk of GI bleeding, stroke, major bleeding and systemic embolism associated with NSAID use. RESULTS: The matched cohort contained 3177 patients with OAC therapy alone and 3177 with at least 1 concomitant NSAID prescription. Compared with OAC therapy alone, concomitant prescription of NSAIDs with OACs was associated with increased risk of GI bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63 to 5.55), stroke (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.96) and major bleeding (HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.19). The association with systemic embolism did not reach statistical significance (HR 3.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 11.07). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in exclusion criteria and the choice of potential confounding variables. CONCLUSION: When OACs are coprescribed with NSAIDs, the risk of adverse bleeding events increases and, simultaneously, the protective effect of OACs to prevent strokes reduces. There is a need for interventions that reduce hazardous prescribing of NSAIDs in people receiving OAC therapy.

Self-management intervention to reduce pulmonary exacerbations by supporting treatment adherence in adults with cystic fibrosis: a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent pulmonary exacerbations lead to progressive lung damage in cystic fibrosis (CF). Inhaled medications (mucoactive agents and antibiotics) help prevent exacerbations, but objectively measured adherence is low. We investigated whether a multi-component (complex) self-management intervention to support adherence would reduce exacerbation rates over 12 months. METHODS: Between October 2017 and May 2018, adults with CF (aged ≥16 years; 19 UK centres) were randomised to the intervention (data-logging nebulisers, a digital platform and behavioural change sessions with trained clinical interventionists) or usual care (data-logging nebulisers). Outcomes included pulmonary exacerbations (primary outcome), objectively measured adherence, body mass index (BMI), lung function (FEV1) and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R). Analyses were by intent to treat over 12 months. RESULTS: Among intervention (n=304) and usual care (n=303) participants (51% female, median age 31 years), 88% completed 12-month follow-up. Mean exacerbation rate was 1.63/year with intervention and 1.77/year with usual care (adjusted ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; p=0.64). Adjusted mean differences (95% CI) were in favour of the intervention versus usual care for objectively measured adherence (9.5% (8.6% to 10.4%)) and BMI (0.3 (0.1 to 0.6) kg/m2), with no difference for %FEV1 (1.4 (-0.2 to 3.0)). Seven CFQ-R subscales showed no between-group difference, but treatment burden reduced for the intervention (3.9 (1.2 to 6.7) points). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: While pulmonary exacerbations and FEV1 did not show statistically significant differences, the intervention achieved higher objectively measured adherence versus usual care. The adherence difference might be inadequate to influence exacerbations, though higher BMI and lower perceived CF treatment burden were observed.

The impact of statin discontinuation and restarting rates on the optimal time to initiate statins and on the number of cardiovascular events prevented.

INTRODUCTION: A patient is eligible for statins in England if they have a 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease >10%. We hypothesize that if statin discontinuation rates are high it may be better to delay statin initiation until patients are at a higher risk, to maximize the benefit of the drug. METHODS: A four-state health state transition model was used to assess the optimal time to initiate statins after a risk assessment, in order to prevent the highest number of cardiovascular events, for a given risk profile (age, gender, risk) and adherence rate. A Clinical Practice Research Datalink dataset linked to Hospital Episodes Statistics and Office for National Statistics was used to inform the transition probabilities in this model, taking into account observed statin discontinuation and re-continuation patterns. RESULTS: Our results suggest, if statins are initiated in a cohort of 50-year old men with a 10% 10-year risk, we prevent 4.78 events per 100 individuals. If we wait 10 years to prescribe, at which point 10-year risk scores are at 20%, we prevent 5.45 events per 100 individuals. If the observed discontinuation rate was reduced by a sixth, third or half in the same cohort, we would prevent 7.29, 9.01 or 10.22 events per 100 individuals. CONCLUSIONS: In certain scenarios, extra cardiovascular disease events could be prevented by delaying statin initiation beyond a risk of 10% until reaching a age (59 for men, 63 for women), based on statin discontinuation rates in England. The optimal time to initiate statins was driven by age, not by cardiovascular risk.

Cost-effectiveness of pain management services for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of published studies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS: Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Clinical and economic implications of therapeutic switching of angiotensin receptor blockers to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost impact of switching angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients with hypertension. METHODS: This study used the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linking with the Hospital Episode Statistics (April 2006 to March 2012). Adults with hypertension (n = 470) were followed from the first ARB prescription date to the switching date (preswitching period); then from the switching date to the date when study ended, patient left the dataset or died (postswitching period). Patients were divided into ACEIs-combined (n = 369) and ACEIs-monotherapy (n = 101) groups by whether additional antihypertensive drugs were prescribed with ACEIs in the postswitching period. Proportion of days covered (PDC), clinical outcomes and costs were compared between the preswitching and postswitching periods using a multilevel regression. RESULTS: Overall, in the postswitching period, there was a significant increase in the proportion of nonadherence (PDC < 80%) (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.6-3.7), but a significant reduction in mean SBP (mean difference: -2.3; 95 CI: -3.4 to 1.2 mmHg) and mean DBP (mean difference: -1.9; 95% CI: -2.6 to -1.2 mmHg). However, these results were only observed in the ACEIs-combined group. There was no postswitching significant difference in either the incidence of individual or composite hypertension-related complications (OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). There was a significant reduction in the overall annual medical cost per patient by £329 (95% CI: -534 to -205). CONCLUSION: Switching of ARBs to ACEIs monotherapy appeared to be clinically effective and a cost-saving strategy. The observed changes in the ACEIs-combined group are assumed to be related to factors other than the ARBs switching.