Bisoprolol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at High Risk of Exacerbation: The BICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that ß-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P = .96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306.

Behavioural activation for depressive symptoms in adults with severe to profound intellectual disabilities: Modelling and initial feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Almost no research has been published reporting on evaluations of the effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with severe to profound intellectual disabilities and depression. This paper describes the development and initial feasibility testing of an adapted Behavioural Activation therapy (BeatIt2) for this population. METHOD: Phase 1 of the study examined participant recruitment and willingness to be randomised in the context of a planned Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Phase 2 examined the feasibility of delivering the intervention. RESULTS: Twenty adults with a severe or profound intellectual disability and clinically significant depression were recruited to Phase 1 of the study. In Phase 2, there was 100% participant retention for those recruited to the study at 6-month follow-up. The BeatIt2 therapy was reported to be acceptable for participants. CONCLUSION: COVID disruption meant that it was not possible to complete the planned feasibility RCT. The positive findings suggest that additional evaluation of BeatIt2 is warranted.

Financial incentives for quitting smoking in pregnancy: Are they cost-effective?

AIMS: To evaluate whether adding financial incentives to usual care is cost-effective in encouraging pregnant women to quit tobacco smoking, compared with usual care alone. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a health-care provider's perspective, embedded in the Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT III). Long-term analyses were conducted from the same perspective, using an existing Markov model over a life-time horizon. SETTING: Seven maternity smoking cessation sites in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: In the short-term analysis, CPIT III participants were assessed: women 16 years or older, self-reporting as smokers, fewer than 24 weeks pregnant and English-speaking (n = 944). The same population was used for the life-time analysis, plus their infants. MEASUREMENTS: Costs included financial incentive vouchers and postage, cessation support and nicotine replacement therapy and neonatal stays. The outcome measure was a biochemically verified quit rate for the CEA and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for CUA. Costs are presented in 2020 GBP sterling (£). Data for the life-time analysis came from the trial and were combined with data from published literature embedded in the model, reporting incremental cost per quitter and QALY. A 3.5% discount rate was applied. FINDINGS: The short-term incremental cost per quitter was £4400 and cost per QALY was £150 000. Results of sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. The long-term analysis combined costs and outcomes for mother and infants; results showed a cost saving of £37 [95% confidence interval (CI]) = £35-106] and increase in QALYs of 0.171 (95% CI = 0.124-0.229). These findings indicate that, over a life-time, financial incentives are cost-saving and improve health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In the United Kingdom, offering up to £400 financial incentives, in addition to usual care, to support pregnant women to stop smoking appears to be highly cost-effective over a life-time for mother and infants.

Implementation of a national smoke-free prison policy: an economic evaluation within the Tobacco in Prisons (TIPs) study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of a smoke-free prison policy in Scotland, through assessments of the trade-offs between costs (healthcare and non-healthcare-related expenditure) and outcomes (health and non-health-related non-monetary consequences) of implementing the policy. DESIGN: A health economic evaluation consisting of three analyses (cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility), from the perspectives of the healthcare payer, prison service, people in custody and operational staff, assessed the trade-offs between costs and outcomes. Costs associated with the implementation of the policy, healthcare resource use and personal spend on nicotine products were considered, alongside health and non-health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of the policy was evaluated over 12-month and lifetime horizons (short term and long term). SETTING: Scotland's national prison estate. PARTICIPANTS: People in custody and operational prison staff. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a comprehensive (indoor and outdoor) smoke-free policy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concentration of secondhand smoke, health-related quality of life (health utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)) and various non-health outcomes (eg, incidents of assaults and fires). RESULTS: The short-term analyses suggest cost savings for people in custody and staff, improvements in concentration of secondhand smoke, with no consistent direction of change across other outcomes. The long-term analysis demonstrated that implementing smoke-free policy was cost-effective over a lifetime for people in custody and staff, with approximate cost savings of £28 000 and £450, respectively, and improvement in health-related quality of life of 0.971 QALYs and 0.262, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementing a smoke-free prison policy is cost-effective over the short term and long term for people in custody and staff.

Effect of financial voucher incentives provided with UK stop smoking services on the cessation of smoking in pregnant women (CPIT III): pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine effectiveness, cost effectiveness, generalisability, and acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy in addition to variously organised UK stop smoking services. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial phase 3 (CPIT III)). SETTING: Seven UK stop smoking services provided in primary and secondary care facilities in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. PARTICIPANTS: 944 pregnant women (age ≥16 years) who self-reported as being smokers (at least one cigarette in the past week) when asked at first maternity visit, less than 24 weeks' gestation, and notified to the trial team by routine stop smoking services. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the control group were offered the standard stop smoking services, which includes the offer of counselling by specially trained workers using withdrawal orientated therapy and the offer of free nicotine replacement therapy. The intervention was the offer of usual support from the stop smoking services and the addition of up to £400 ($440; €455) of LoveToShop financial voucher incentives for engaging with current stop smoking services or to stop smoking, or both, during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported smoking cessation in late pregnancy (between 34 and 38 weeks' gestation) corroborated by saliva cotinine (and anabasine if using nicotine replacement products). Results were adjusted for age, smoking years, index of multiple deprivation, Fagerström score, before or after covid, and recruitment site. Secondary outcomes included point and continuous abstinence six months after expected date of delivery, engagement with stop smoking services, biochemically validated abstinence from smoking at four weeks after stop smoking date, birth weight of baby, cost effectiveness, generalisability documenting formats of stop smoking services, and acceptability to pregnant women and their carers. RESULTS: From 9 January 2018 to 4 April 2020, of 4032 women screened by stop smoking services, 944 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=471) or the control group (n=470). Three people asked for their data to be removed. 126 (27%) of 471 participants stopped smoking from the intervention group and 58 (12%) of 470 from the control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.78 (1.94 to 3.97) P<0.001). Serious adverse events were miscarriages and other expected pregnancy events requiring hospital admission; all serious adverse events were unrelated to the intervention. Most people who stopped smoking from both groups relapsed after their baby was born. CONCLUSIONS: The offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives to stop smoking during pregnancy as an addition to current UK stop smoking services is highly effective. This bolt-on intervention supports new guidance from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which includes the addition of financial incentives to support pregnant women to stop smoking. Continuing incentives to 12 months after birth is being examined to prevent relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15236311.

Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Relapse is a major determinant of outcome for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Early warning signs frequently precede relapse. A recent Cochrane Review found low-quality evidence to suggest a positive effect of early warning signs interventions on hospitalisation and relapse. OBJECTIVE: How feasible is a study to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? DESIGN: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial involving eight community mental health services, with 12-month follow-up. SETTINGS: Glasgow, UK, and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Service users were aged > 16 years and had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder with evidence of a relapse within the previous 2 years. Carers were eligible for inclusion if they were nominated by an eligible service user. INTERVENTIONS: The Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Wellbeing, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) intervention was designed to enable participants to monitor changes in their well-being daily using a mobile phone, blended with peer support. Clinical triage of changes in well-being that were suggestive of early signs of relapse was enabled through an algorithm that triggered a check-in prompt that informed a relapse prevention pathway, if warranted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were feasibility of the trial and feasibility, acceptability and usability of the intervention, as well as safety and performance. Candidate co-primary outcomes were relapse and fear of relapse. RESULTS: We recruited 86 service users, of whom 73 were randomised (42 to EMPOWER and 31 to treatment as usual). Primary outcome data were collected for 84% of participants at 12 months. Feasibility data for people using the smartphone application (app) suggested that the app was easy to use and had a positive impact on motivations and intentions in relation to mental health. Actual app usage was high, with 91% of users who completed the baseline period meeting our a priori criterion of acceptable engagement (> 33%). The median time to discontinuation of > 33% app usage was 32 weeks (95% confidence interval 14 weeks to ∞). There were 8 out of 33 (24%) relapses in the EMPOWER arm and 13 out of 28 (46%) in the treatment-as-usual arm. Fewer participants in the EMPOWER arm had a relapse (relative risk 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.98), and time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.74) was longer in the EMPOWER arm than in the treatment-as-usual group. At 12 months, EMPOWER participants were less fearful of having a relapse than those in the treatment-as-usual arm (mean difference -4.29, 95% confidence interval -7.29 to -1.28). EMPOWER was more costly and more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3041. This incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be considered cost-effective when using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. LIMITATIONS: This was a feasibility study and the outcomes detected cannot be taken as evidence of efficacy or effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs that blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A main trial with a sample size of 500 (assuming 90% power and 20% dropout) would detect a clinically meaningful reduction in relapse (relative risk 0.7) and improvement in other variables (effect sizes 0.3-0.4). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN99559262. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding in Australia was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1095879).

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Relapse is a considerable problem for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Relapse can be predicted by early warning signs that are unique to the person. They include withdrawal, fear and paranoia. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Is it possible to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? WHAT DID WE DO?: We spoke with 88 mental health staff, 40 carers and 21 service users before we designed a system that used a mobile phone to help people monitor early warning signs. We included peer support to help people using the system reflect on their experiences. We hoped the overall system, called EMPOWER, would help people to be more in charge of their mental health. After consenting 86 people to the study, we were able to randomly assign 73 people either to use the EMPOWER system (42 people) or to receive their normal treatment alone (31 people). We used research measures over 1 year to help us better understand people's experiences. We also involved carers (for example family or friends) and mental health service providers in the research. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that it was possible to recruit people to the study and to gather research data. We also found that people used the EMPOWER system and found it acceptable. We found that those who used EMPOWER had a lower rate of relapse over 12 months than people who did not. They were also less likely to be fearful of relapse. We found that EMPOWER was likely to be cost-effective. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: This means that a study to investigate the effectiveness of a system to recognise and respond to early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia is possible.

The EMPOWER blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in Scotland and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Early warning signs monitoring by service users with schizophrenia has shown promise in preventing relapse but the quality of evidence is low. We aimed to establish the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. METHODS: This multicentre, feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to compare Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) with treatment as usual in community mental health services (CMHS) in Glasgow and Melbourne. CMHS were the unit of randomisation, selected on the basis of those that probably had five or more care coordinators willing to participate. Participants were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had a schizophrenia or related diagnosis confirmed via case records, were able to provide informed consent, had contact with CMHS, and had had a relapse within the previous 2 years. Participants were randomised within stratified clusters to EMPOWER or to continue their usual approach to care. EMPOWER blended a smartphone for active monitoring of early warning signs with peer support to promote self-management and clinical triage to promote access to relapse prevention. Main outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, usability, and safety, which was assessed through face-to-face interviews. App usage was assessed via the smartphone and self-report. Primary end point was 12 months. Participants, research assistants and other team members involved in delivering the intervention were not masked to treatment conditions. Assessment of relapse was done by an independent adjudication panel masked to randomisation group. The study is registered at ISRCTN (99559262). FINDINGS: We identified and randomised eight CMHS (six in Glasgow and two in Melbourne) comprising 47 care coordinators. We recruited 86 service users between Jan 19 and Aug 8, 2018; 73 were randomised (42 [58%] to EMPOWER and 31 [42%] to treatment as usual). There were 37 (51%) men and 36 (49%) women. At 12 months, main outcomes were collected for 32 (76%) of service users in the EMPOWER group and 30 (97%) of service users in the treatment as usual group. Of those randomised to EMPOWER, 30 (71%) met our a priori criterion of more than 33% adherence to daily monitoring that assumed feasibility. Median time to discontinuation of these participants was 31·5 weeks (SD 14·5). There were 29 adverse events in the EMPOWER group and 25 adverse events in the treatment as usual group. There were 13 app-related adverse events, affecting 11 people, one of which was serious. Fear of relapse was lower in the EMPOWER group than in the treatment as usual group at 12 months (mean difference -7·53 (95% CI -14·45 to 0·60; Cohen's d -0·53). INTERPRETATION: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse appears to be feasible, safe, and acceptable. A further main trial is merited. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Use of the oral beta blocker bisoprolol to reduce the rate of exacerbation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a randomised controlled trial (BICS).

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease. METHODS: BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1 < 80% predicted, FEV1/FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers. DISCUSSION: The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018.

Evaluation of a national smoke-free prisons policy using medication dispensing: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, smoking prevalence among people in prison custody (ie, people on remand awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing, or serving a custodial sentence) is high. In Scotland, all prisons implemented a comprehensive smoke-free policy in 2018 after a 16-month anticipatory period. In this study, we aimed to use data on medication dispensing to assess the impact of this policy on cessation support, health outcomes, and potential unintended consequences among people in prison custody. METHODS: We did an interrupted time-series analysis using dispensing data for 44 660 individuals incarcerated in 14 closed prisons in Scotland between March 30, 2014, and Nov 30, 2019. We estimated changes in dispensing rates associated with the policy announcement (July 17, 2017) and full implementation (Nov 30, 2018) using seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models. Medication categories of primary interest were treatments for nicotine dependence (as an indicator of smoking cessation or abstinence attempts), acute smoking-associated illnesses, and mental health (antidepressants). We included antiepileptic medications as a negative control. FINDINGS: A 44% step increase in dispensing of treatments for nicotine dependence was observed at implementation (2250 items per 1000 people in custody per fortnight, 95% CI 1875 to 2624) due primarily to a 42% increase in dispensing of nicotine replacement therapy (2109 items per 1000 people in custody per fortnight, 1701 to 2516). A 9% step decrease in dispensing for smoking-related illnesses was observed at implementation, largely accounted for by respiratory medications (-646 items per 1000 people in custody per fortnight, -1111 to -181). No changes associated with announcement or implementation were observed for mental health dispensing or antiepileptic medications (control). INTERPRETATION: Smoke-free prison policies might improve respiratory health among people in custody and encourage smoking abstinence or cessation without apparent short-term adverse effects on mental health dispensing. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Public Health Research programme, Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, and UK Medical Research Council.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging.

The EarlyCDT-Lung test is a high-specificity blood-based autoantibody biomarker that could contribute to predicting lung cancer risk. We report on the results of a phase IV biomarker evaluation of whether using the EarlyCDT-Lung test and any subsequent computed tomography (CT) scanning to identify those at high risk of lung cancer reduces the incidence of patients with stage III/IV/unspecified lung cancer at diagnosis compared with the standard clinical practice at the time the study began.The Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) trial was a randomised controlled trial of 12 208 participants at risk of developing lung cancer in Scotland in the UK. The intervention arm received the EarlyCDT-Lung test and, if test-positive, low-dose CT scanning 6-monthly for up to 2 years. EarlyCDT-Lung test-negative and control arm participants received standard clinical care. Outcomes were assessed at 2 years post-randomisation using validated data on cancer occurrence, cancer staging, mortality and comorbidities.At 2 years, 127 lung cancers were detected in the study population (1.0%). In the intervention arm, 33 out of 56 (58.9%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage III/IV compared with 52 out of 71 (73.2%) in the control arm. The hazard ratio for stage III/IV presentation was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99). There were nonsignificant differences in lung cancer and all-cause mortality after 2 years.ECLS compared EarlyCDT-Lung plus CT screening to standard clinical care (symptomatic presentation) and was not designed to assess the incremental contribution of the EarlyCDT-Lung test. The observation of a stage shift towards earlier-stage lung cancer diagnosis merits further investigations to evaluate whether the EarlyCDT-Lung test adds anything to the emerging standard of low-dose CT.

A protocol for the economic evaluation of the smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III (CPIT III).

INTRODUCTION: Smoking results in an average 10-year loss of life, but smokers who permanently quit before age 40 can expect a near normal lifespan. Pregnancy poses a good opportunity to help women to stop; around 80% of women in the UK have a baby, most of whom are less than 40 years of age. Smoking prevalence during pregnancy is high: 17%-23% in the UK. Smoking during pregnancy causes low birth weight and increases the risk of premature birth. After birth, passive smoking is linked to sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory diseases and increased likelihood of taking up smoking. These risks impact the long-term health of the child with associated increase in health costs. Emerging evidence suggests that offering financial incentives to pregnant women to quit is highly cost effective.This protocol describes the economic evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III, CPIT III) designed to establish whether offering financial incentives, in addition to usual care, is effective and cost effective in helping pregnant women to quit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation will identify, measure and value resource use and outcomes from CPIT III, comparing participants randomised to either usual care or usual care plus up to £400 financial incentives. Within-trial and long-term analyses will be conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective; the outcome for both analyses will be quality adjusted life-years measured using EQ-5D-5L. Patient level data collected during the trial will be used for the within-trial analysis, with an additional outcome of cotinine validated quit rates at 34-38 weeks gestation and 6 months postpartum. The long-term model will be informed by data from the trial and published literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15236311; Pre-results (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15236311).

How methodological frameworks are being developed: evidence from a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a 'methodological framework', nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. For the purposes of this study we have defined a methodological framework as a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. This study's aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O'Malley's methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was 'Based on existing methods and guidelines' (66.7%), followed by 'Refined and validated' (33.3%), 'Experience and expertise' (30.0%), 'Literature review' (26.7%), 'Data synthesis and amalgamation' (23.3%), 'Data extraction' (10.0%), 'Iteratively developed' (6.7%) and 'Lab work results' (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; diverse terms for methodological framework were used across and, interchangeably, within studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.

The smoking cessation in pregnancy incentives trial (CPIT): study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eighty per cent of UK women have at least one baby, making pregnancy an opportunity to help women stop smoking before their health is irreparably compromised. Smoking cessation during pregnancy helps protect infants from miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight, asthma, attention deficit disorder and adult cardiovascular disease. UK national guidelines highlight lack of evidence for effectiveness of financial incentives to help pregnant smokers quit. This includes a research recommendation: within a UK context, are incentives an acceptable, effective and cost-effective way to help pregnant women who smoke to quit? METHODS: The Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT) III is a pragmatic, 42-month, multi-centre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial of the effect on smoking status of adding to usual Stop Smoking Services (SSS) support, the offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives, compared with usual support alone, to quit smoking during pregnancy. Participants (n = 940) are pregnant smokers (age > 16 years, < 24 weeks pregnant, English speaking), who consent via telephone to take part and are willing to be followed-up in late pregnancy and 6 months after birth. The primary outcome is cotinine/anabasine-validated abstinence from smoking in late pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include engagement with SSS, quit rates at 4 weeks from agreed quit date and 6 months after birth, and birth weight. Outcomes will be analysed by intention to treat, and regression models will be used to compare treatment effects on outcomes. A meta-analysis will include data from the feasibility study in Glasgow. An economic evaluation will assess cost-effectiveness from a UK NHS perspective. Process evaluation using a case-study approach will identify opportunities to improve recruitment and learning for future implementation. Research questions include: what is the therapeutic efficacy of incentives; are incentives cost-effective; and what are the potential facilitators and barriers to implementing incentives in different parts of the UK? DISCUSSION: This phase III trial in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland follows a successful phase II trial in Glasgow, UK. The participating sites have diverse SSS that represent most cessation services in the UK and serve demographically varied populations. If found to be acceptable and cost-effective, this trial could demonstrate that financial incentives are effective and transferable to most UK SSS for pregnant women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN15236311. Registered on 9 October 2017.

Early Signs Monitoring to Prevent Relapse in Psychosis and Promote Well-Being, Engagement, and Recovery: Protocol for a Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Harnessing Mobile Phone Technology Blended With Peer Support.

BACKGROUND: Relapse in schizophrenia is a major cause of distress and disability and is predicted by changes in symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and suspiciousness (early warning signs [EWSs]). These can be used as the basis for timely interventions to prevent relapse. However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the implementation of EWS interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) against treatment as usual (TAU). Our primary outcomes are establishing parameters of feasibility, acceptability, usability, safety, and outcome signals of a digital health intervention as an adjunct to usual care that is deliverable in the UK National Health Service and Australian community mental health service (CMHS) settings. We will assess the feasibility of candidate primary outcomes, candidate secondary outcomes, and candidate mechanisms for a definitive trial. METHODS: We will randomize CMHSs to EMPOWER or TAU. We aim to recruit up to 120 service user participants from 8 CMHSs and follow them for 12 months. Eligible service users will (1) be aged 16 years and above, (2) be in contact with local CMHSs, (3) have either been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient service or received crisis intervention at least once in the previous 2 years for a relapse, and (4) have an International Classification of Diseases-10 diagnosis of a schizophrenia-related disorder. Service users will also be invited to nominate a carer to participate. We will identify the feasibility of the main trial in terms of recruitment and retention to the study and the acceptability, usability, safety, and outcome signals of the EMPOWER intervention. EMPOWER is a mobile phone app that enables the monitoring of well-being and possible EWSs of relapse on a daily basis. An algorithm calculates changes in well-being based on participants' own baseline to enable tailoring of well-being messaging and clinical triage of possible EWSs. Use of the app is blended with ongoing peer support. RESULTS: Recruitment to the trial began September 2018, and follow-up of participants was completed in July 2019. Data collection is continuing. The database was locked in July 2019, followed by analysis and disclosing of group allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge gained from the study will inform the design of a definitive trial including finalizing the delivery of our digital health intervention, sample size estimation, methods to ensure successful identification, consent, randomization, and follow-up of participants, and the primary and secondary outcomes. The trial will also inform the final health economic model to be applied in the main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 99559262; http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN99559262. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15058.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4-6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. SETTING: Twenty-six NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. RESULTS: Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was -1.38% (90% confidence interval -4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. LIMITATIONS: The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. FUTURE WORK: Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment of bone and joint infection usually requires a long course of antibiotics. Doctors usually give these by injection through a vein (intravenously) for the first 4­6 weeks, rather than by mouth (orally). Although intravenous (IV) administration is more expensive and less convenient for patients, most doctors believe that it is more effective. However, there is little evidence to support this. The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial set out to challenge this assumption. A total of 1054 patients from 26 UK hospitals were randomly allocated to receive the first 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy either intravenously or orally. Irrespective of the route of administration, the choice of antibiotic was left to an infection specialist so as to ensure that the most appropriate antibiotics were given. Patients were followed up for 1 year. Thirty-nine participants were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining 1015 participants, treatment failure occurred in 14.6% of those treated intravenously and 13.2% of those treated with PO antibiotics. This difference could easily have occurred by chance. Even if it was not by chance, the difference does not suggest that PO therapy is associated with worse outcomes than IV therapy and is too small to conclude that PO therapy is better than IV therapy. Participants in the IV group stayed in hospital longer and 10% of them had complications related to the IV line used for administering the antibiotics. In addition, their treatment was, overall, more expensive. We conclude that PO antibiotic therapy has no disadvantages for the early management of bone and joint infection. It is also cheaper and associated with fewer complications.

Low-dose oral theophylline combined with inhaled corticosteroids for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high risk of exacerbations: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use of therapies such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continue to suffer, have reduced life expectancy and utilise considerable NHS resources. Laboratory investigations have demonstrated that at low plasma concentrations (1-5 mg/l) theophylline markedly enhances the anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids in COPD. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding low-dose theophylline to a drug regimen containing ICSs in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: The trial was conducted in 121 UK primary and secondary care sites. PARTICIPANTS: People with COPD [i.e. who have a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) of < 0.7] currently on a drug regimen including ICSs with a history of two or more exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids (OCSs) in the previous year. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive either low-dose theophylline or placebo for 1 year. The dose of theophylline (200 mg once or twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The number of participant-reported exacerbations in the 1-year treatment period that were treated with antibiotics and/or OCSs. RESULTS: A total of 1578 people were randomised (60% from primary care): 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. There were 11 post-randomisation exclusions. Trial medication was prescribed to 1567 participants: 788 in the theophylline arm and 779 in the placebo arm. Participants in the trial arms were well balanced in terms of characteristics. The mean age was 68.4 [standard deviation (SD) 8.4] years, 54% were male, 32% smoked and mean FEV1 was 51.7% (SD 20.0%) predicted. Primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline arm and 764 in the placebo arm. There were 1489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean number of exacerbations was 2.24 (SD 1.99) for participants allocated to theophylline and 2.23 (SD 1.97) for participants allocated to placebo [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.08]. Low-dose theophylline had no significant effects on lung function (i.e. FEV1), incidence of pneumonia, mortality, breathlessness or measures of quality of life or disease impact. Hospital admissions due to COPD exacerbation were less frequent with low-dose theophylline (adjusted IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94). However, 39 of the 51 excess hospital admissions in the placebo group were accounted for by 10 participants having three or more exacerbations. There were no differences in the reporting of theophylline side effects between the theophylline and placebo arms. LIMITATIONS: A higher than expected percentage of participants (26%) ceased trial medication; this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo arms and mitigated by over-recruitment (n = 154 additional participants were recruited) and the high rate of follow-up. The limitation of not using documented exacerbations is addressed by evidence that patient recall is highly reliable and the results of a small within-trial validation study. CONCLUSION: For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose oral theophylline to a drug regimen that includes ICSs confers no overall clinical or health economic benefit. This result was evident from the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. FUTURE WORK: To promote consideration of the findings of this trial in national and international COPD guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a long-term lung disease that cannot be cured. The main symptom is shortness of breath on exertion. In the UK, about 1.2 million people have COPD. It is a major cause of death and costs the NHS > £1B a year. Sudden 'flare-ups' of symptoms often need emergency treatment, shorten life expectancy and reduce people's ability to get on with their lives. Theophylline is a drug that has been around for decades. In the past, it was used in high doses to treat COPD by opening up airways. However, its benefits were limited and it often caused unpleasant side effects. High-dose theophylline has been replaced by drugs administered by inhalers, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Recent work in the laboratory and in animal models suggests that, at low dose, theophylline could make ICSs work better in COPD with none of the side effects of high-dose theophylline. The Theophylline With Inhaled CorticoSteroid (TWICS) trial tested whether or not adding low-dose theophylline reduces flare-ups in people with COPD taking ICSs. A total of 1578 people with COPD from 121 centres all over the UK took part. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: one group took low-dose theophylline and the other took dummy placebo pills. Participants were asked to attend visits at 6 and 12 months. A total of 791 participants were prescribed low-dose theophylline and 787 were prescribed dummy placebo pills. Although not everyone took the tablets for a whole year, it was possible to count the number of flare-ups in 98% of those taking part. In total, there were 3430 flare-ups. On average, the people taking low-dose theophylline had 2.24 flare-ups and the people taking placebo had 2.23 flare-ups. Overall, the trial showed that, for people with COPD, taking low-dose theophylline on top of steroid inhalers makes no real difference.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS: We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS: Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial.

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial 'Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics' (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Effect of Theophylline as Adjunct to Inhaled Corticosteroids on Exacerbations in Patients With COPD: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major global health issue and theophylline is used extensively. Preclinical investigations have demonstrated that low plasma concentrations (1-5 mg/L) of theophylline enhance antiinflammatory effects of corticosteroids in COPD. Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of adding low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids in COPD. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TWICS (theophylline with inhaled corticosteroids) trial was a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients with COPD between February 6, 2014, and August 31, 2016. Final follow-up ended on August 31, 2017. Participants had a ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) of less than 0.7 with at least 2 exacerbations (treated with antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, or both) in the previous year and were using an inhaled corticosteroid. This study included 1578 participants in 121 UK primary and secondary care sites. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline (200 mg once or twice per day) to provide plasma concentrations of 1 to 5 mg/L (determined by ideal body weight and smoking status) (n = 791) or placebo (n = 787). Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of participant-reported moderate or severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, or both over the 1-year treatment period. Results: Of the 1567 participants analyzed, mean (SD) age was 68.4 (8.4) years and 54% (843) were men. Data for evaluation of the primary outcome were available for 1536 participants (98%) (772 in the theophylline group; 764 in the placebo group). In total, there were 3430 exacerbations: 1727 in the theophylline group (mean, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.10-2.38] exacerbations per year) vs 1703 in the placebo group (mean, 2.23 [95% CI, 2.09-2.37] exacerbations per year); unadjusted mean difference, 0.01 (95% CI, -0.19 to 0.21) and adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.08). Serious adverse events in the theophylline and placebo groups included cardiac, 2.4% vs 3.4%; gastrointestinal, 2.7% vs 1.3%; and adverse reactions such as nausea (10.9% vs 7.9%) and headaches (9.0% vs 7.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with COPD at high risk of exacerbation treated with inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of low-dose theophylline, compared with placebo, did not reduce the number COPD exacerbations over a 1-year period. The findings do not support the use of low-dose theophylline as adjunctive therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for the prevention of COPD exacerbations. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN27066620.

Behavioural activation versus guided self-help for depression in adults with learning disabilities: the BeatIt RCT.

BACKGROUND: Depression is the most prevalent mental health problem among people with learning disabilities. OBJECTIVE: The trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for depression experienced by people with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The intervention was compared with a guided self-help intervention. DESIGN: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 4, 8 and 12 months post randomisation. There was a nested qualitative study. SETTING: Participants were recruited from community learning disability teams and services and from Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services in Scotland, England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with clinically significant depression, assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders for use with Adults with Learning Disabilities. Participants had to be able to give informed consent and a supporter could accompany them to therapy. INTERVENTIONS: BeatIt was a manualised behavioural activation intervention, adapted for people with learning disabilities and depression. StepUp was an adapted guided self-help intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD). Secondary outcomes included carer ratings of depressive symptoms and aggressiveness, self-reporting of anxiety symptoms, social support, activity and adaptive behaviour, relationships, quality of life (QoL) and life events, and resource and medication use. RESULTS: There were 161 participants randomised (BeatIt, n = 84; StepUp, n = 77). Participant retention was strong, with 141 completing the trial. Most completed therapy (BeatIt: 86%; StepUp: 82%). At baseline, 63% of BeatIt participants and 66% of StepUp participants were prescribed antidepressants. There was no statistically significant difference in GDS-LD scores between the StepUp (12.94 points) and BeatIt (11.91 points) groups at the 12-month primary outcome point. However, both groups improved during the trial. Other psychological and QoL outcomes followed a similar pattern. There were no treatment group differences, but there was improvement in both groups. There was no economic evidence suggesting that BeatIt may be more cost-effective than StepUp. However, treatment costs for both groups were approximately only 4-6.5% of the total support costs. Results of the qualitative research with participants, supporters and therapists were in concert with the quantitative findings. Both treatments were perceived as active interventions and were valued in terms of their structure, content and perceived impact. LIMITATIONS: A significant limitation was the absence of a treatment-as-usual (TAU) comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Primary and secondary outcomes, economic data and qualitative results all clearly demonstrate that there was no evidence for BeatIt being more effective than StepUp. FUTURE WORK: Comparisons against TAU are required to determine whether or not these interventions had any effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09753005. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.