Clinical and cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy for insomnia in primary care (HABIT): a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). FINDINGS: Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19-88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference -3·05, 95% CI -3·83 to -2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d -0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. INTERPRETATION: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Inhaled Budesonide for COVID-19 in People at Higher Risk of Complications in the Community: The UK National Community Randomi.

Background The effectiveness of repurposed treatments with supportive evidence for higher risk individuals with COVID-19 in the community is unknown. In the UK PRINCIPLE national platform trial we aimed to determine whether 're-purposed medicines' (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, colchicine, inhaled budesonide, and other interventions) reduced time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people at higher risk of COVID-19 complications in the community. We mainly report the findings for budesonide arm here. Methods Participants in this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial were aged ≥65, or ≥50 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Funded by United Kingdom Research Innovation (MC_PC_19079). Findings The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with the first 4 intervention arms stopped on futility grounds. Randomisation to the budesonide arm occurred from November 27, 2020 until March 31, 2021, when the pre-specified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to budesonide (n=787), usual care (n=1069), and other treatments (n=674). Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group versus usual care (hazard ratio 1·21 [95% credible interval 1·08 to 1·36], probability of superiority >O·999, estimated benefit 2·94 [95% credible interval 1·19 to 5·12] days). An estimated 6·8% COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the budesonide group versus 8·8% in usual care (estimated absolute difference, 2·0% [95% credible interval -0.2% to 4.5%], probability of superiority 0.963). In the main secondary analysis of admissions using only concurrent controls, admissions occurred in 6.6% (3.8 to 10.1%) in the budesonide group versus 8.8% (95% CI 5.2 to 13.1%), with an absolute difference of 2.2% (0.0 to 4.9%) and a hazard ratio of 0.73 (0.53 to 1.00), meeting the pre-specified superiority probability of 0.975. Three serious adverse events occurred in the budesonide group and three in usual care.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366. FINDINGS: 1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups. INTERPRETATION: Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Telemonitoring and/or self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension (TASMINH4): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of hypertension is associated with lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). However, evidence for the use of self-monitoring to titrate antihypertensive medication by physicians is equivocal. Furthermore, there is some evidence for the efficacy of telemonitoring in the management of hypertension but it is not clear what this adds over and above self-monitoring. This trial aims to evaluate whether GP led antihypertensive titration using self-monitoring results in lower SBP compared to usual care and whether telemonitoring adds anything to self-monitoring alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a pragmatic primary care based, unblinded, randomised controlled trial of self-monitoring of BP with or without telemonitoring compared to usual care. Eligible patients will have poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg) and will be recruited from primary care. Participants will be individually randomised to either usual care, self-monitoring alone, or self-monitoring with telemonitoring. The primary outcome of the trial will be difference in clinic SBP between intervention and control groups at 12 months adjusted for baseline SBP, gender, BP target and practice. At least 1110 patients will be sufficient to detect a difference in SBP between self-monitoring with or without telemonitoring and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power with an adjusted alpha of 0.017 (2-sided) to adjust for all three pairwise comparisons. Other outcomes will include adherence of anti-hypertensive medication, lifestyle behaviours, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. An economic analysis will consider both within trial costs and a model extrapolating the results thereafter. A qualitative sub study will gain insights into the views, experiences and decision making processes of patients and health care professionals focusing on the acceptability of self-monitoring and telemonitoring in the routine management of hypertension. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will be directly applicable to primary care in the UK. If successful, self-monitoring of BP in people with hypertension would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 83571366 . Registered 17 July 2014.

Trastuzumab-associated cardiac events in the Persephone trial.

BACKGROUND: We report cardiac events in the Persephone trial which compares 6-12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab in women with confirmed HER2-positive, early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Clinical cardiac events were defined as any of the following: symptoms and/or signs of congestive heart failure (CHF) and new or altered CHF medication. In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured at baseline and then 3 monthly for 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 2500 patients, aged 22-82, were included: 1251 randomised to 12 months and 1249 to 6 months of trastuzumab treatment. A total of 93% (2335/2500) received anthracyclines, 49% of these (1136/2335) with taxanes. Cardiotoxicity delayed treatment in 6% of 12-month and 4% of 6-month patients (P=0.01), and stopped treatment early in 8% (96/1214) of 12-month and 4% (45/1216) of 6-month patients (P<0.0001). Between 7 and 12 months, more 12-month than 6-month patients had LVEFs<50% (8% vs 5%; P=0.004). LVEFs showed quadratic change over time, and 6-month patients had a more rapid recovery (P=0.02). In a landmark analysis twice as many 12-month patients, free of cardiac events at 6 months, had cardiac problems in months 7-12 (6% (66/1046) vs 3% (29/1035) of 6-month patients (P=0.0002)). Lower baseline LVEF predicted more cardiac dysfunction in both arms (reference ⩾65%: 55 to <65% OR 1.61 (95% CI 1.26-2.04); <55% OR 5.22 (3.42-7.95)) as did increasing age (reference <50: 50-59 OR 1.58 (1.17-2.12), 60-69 OR 1.91 (1.42-2.57)) 70+ OR 2.72 (1.82-4.08)) and prior use of cardiac medication (OR 8.46 (4.69-15.25)). >3 cycles of anthracycline was associated with higher risk of cardiac events only for 12-month patients (OR 1.41 (1.04-1.90)), and not for 6-month patients (OR 1.28 (0.91-1.79)). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate significantly fewer cardiac events from 6 months of adjuvant trastuzumab compared with that from 12 months. This cardiac signal adds importance to the question of the optimum duration of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment. If 6 months is proven to have non-inferior outcomes to 12 months treatment, these data would support 6 months as the standard of care.

Digital thErapy For Improved tiNnitus carE Study (DEFINE): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Tinnitus is a common health condition, affecting approximately 15% of the UK population. The tinnitus treatment with the strongest evidence base is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), with standard tinnitus therapy typically augmented with education, relaxation and other techniques. Availability of CBT and conventional tinnitus therapy more broadly is limited for tinnitus sufferers. The DEFINE trial aims to assess whether smartphone-delivered tinnitus therapy, the Oto app, is as effective as current standard care, one-to-one therapist-delivered tinnitus treatment for the treatment of tinnitus in adults. The trial is registered in the ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN99577932. DEFINE is an open-label, non-inferiority, prospective, parallel design, randomised-controlled trial. Recruitment, interventions and assessments will be remote, enabling UK-wide participant involvement. 198 participants aged 18 years or more will be recruited via social media advertisement or via primary care physicians. A screening process will identify those with tinnitus that impacts health-related quality of life, and following consent smartphone-based audiometry will be performed. Randomisation 1:1 to the Oto app or one-to-one therapist-led tinnitus therapy will be performed centrally by computer, matching groups for age, sex and hearing level. Following participant allocation, the Oto app will be provided for immediate use, or a one-to-one remote therapy appointment booked to occur within approximately 1 week, with up to 6 sessions delivered. Participant outcomes will be collected at 4,12, 26 and 52 weeks via questionnaire and phone call. The primary outcome is the change in Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) total score measured at 26 weeks following allocation. Adverse events will be recorded. A health economic evaluation in the form of a cost-utility analysis will be performed using data from participant submitted EuroQol 5D-5L and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 scores and resource use data. Trial results will be made publicly available, including a plain English summary.

Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy to improve insomnia disorder in primary care: the HABIT RCT.

Background: Insomnia is a prevalent and distressing sleep disorder. Multicomponent cognitive-behavioural therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but access remains extremely limited, particularly in primary care where insomnia is managed. One principal component of cognitive-behavioural therapy is a behavioural treatment called sleep restriction therapy, which could potentially be delivered as a brief single-component intervention by generalists in primary care. Objectives: The primary objective of the Health-professional Administered Brief Insomnia Therapy trial was to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care improves insomnia relative to sleep hygiene. Secondary objectives were to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy was cost-effective, and to undertake a process evaluation to understand intervention delivery, fidelity and acceptability. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial with embedded process evaluation. Setting: National Health Service general practice in three regions of England. Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with insomnia disorder were randomised using a validated web-based randomisation programme. Interventions: Participants in the intervention group were offered a brief four-session nurse-delivered behavioural treatment involving two in-person sessions and two by phone. Participants were supported to follow a prescribed sleep schedule with the aim of restricting and standardising time in bed. Participants were also provided with a sleep hygiene leaflet. The control group received the same sleep hygiene leaflet by e-mail or post. There was no restriction on usual care. Main outcome measures: Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months. Participants were included in the primary analysis if they contributed at least one post-randomisation outcome. The primary end point was self-reported insomnia severity with the Insomnia Severity Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related and sleep-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity and activity impairment, self-reported and actigraphy-defined sleep, and hypnotic medication use. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. For the process evaluation, semistructured interviews were carried out with participants, nurses and practice managers or general practitioners. Due to the nature of the intervention, both participants and nurses were aware of group allocation. Results: We recruited 642 participants (n = 321 for sleep restriction therapy; n = 321 for sleep hygiene) between 29 August 2018 and 23 March 2020. Five hundred and eighty participants (90.3%) provided data at a minimum of one follow-up time point; 257 (80.1%) participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm and 291 (90.7%) participants in the sleep hygiene arm provided primary outcome data at 6 months. The estimated adjusted mean difference on the Insomnia Severity Index was -3.05 (95% confidence interval -3.83 to -2.28; p < 0.001, Cohen's d = -0.74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 10.9 (5.5)] reported lower insomnia severity compared to sleep hygiene [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 13.9 (5.2)]. Large treatment effects were also found at 3 (d = -0.95) and 12 months (d = -0.72). Superiority of sleep restriction therapy over sleep hygiene was evident at 3, 6 and 12 months for self-reported sleep, mental health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity impairment and sleep-related quality of life. Eight participants in each group experienced serious adverse events but none were judged to be related to the intervention. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £2075.71, giving a 95.3% probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000. The process evaluation found that sleep restriction therapy was acceptable to both nurses and patients, and delivered with high fidelity. Limitations: While we recruited a clinical sample, 97% were of white ethnic background and 50% had a university degree, which may limit generalisability to the insomnia population in England. Conclusions: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care is clinically effective for insomnia disorder, safe, and likely to be cost-effective. Future work: Future work should examine the place of sleep restriction therapy in the insomnia treatment pathway, assess generalisability across diverse primary care patients with insomnia, and consider additional methods to enhance patient engagement with treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN42499563. Funding: The award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/84/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 36. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Insomnia refers to problems with falling asleep or staying asleep, which affects 10% of the adult population. The recommended treatment for insomnia is a psychological treatment called cognitive­behavioural therapy. Research shows this to be a very effective and long-lasting treatment, but there are not enough trained therapists to support the large number of poor sleepers in the United Kingdom. We have developed a brief version of cognitive­behavioural therapy, called sleep restriction therapy, which involves supporting the patient to follow a new sleep­wake pattern. We carried out this study to see if sleep restriction therapy, given by nurses working in general practice, can improve insomnia and quality of life. We searched general practice records and invited people with insomnia to take part. Six hundred and forty-two participants were assigned, by chance, to either sleep restriction therapy or a comparison treatment, called sleep hygiene. Sleep restriction therapy involved meeting with a nurse on four occasions and following a prescribed sleep schedule. Sleep hygiene involved receiving a leaflet of sleep 'do's and dont's'. Those receiving sleep restriction therapy were also provided with the same sleep hygiene leaflet so that the difference between the two groups was whether or not they received nurse treatment. We measured sleep, quality of life, daytime functioning and use of sleep medication through questionnaires, before and after treatment. We calculated the cost to deliver the treatment, as well as the cost of other National Health Service treatments that participants accessed during the study. We also interviewed participants and nurses to understand their views of the treatment. We found that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group experienced greater reduction in their insomnia symptoms compared to sleep hygiene. They also experienced improved sleep, mental health, quality of life and work productivity. The two groups did not differ in their use of prescribed sleep medication. Our results suggest that the treatment is likely to represent good value for money for the National Health Service. Both nurses and participants considered the treatment to be acceptable and beneficial, and they suggested some potential refinements. The study shows that nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy is likely to be a clinically effective approach to the treatment of insomnia, and good value for money for the National Health Service.

Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care for adults with insomnia disorder: a mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Sleep restriction therapy (SRT) is a behavioural therapy for insomnia. AIM: To conduct a process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial comparing SRT delivered by primary care nurses plus a sleep hygiene booklet with the sleep hygiene booklet only for adults with insomnia disorder. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods process evaluation in a general practice setting. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a purposive sample of patients receiving SRT, the practice nurses who delivered the therapy, and also GPs or practice managers at the participating practices. Qualitative data were explored using framework analysis, and integrated with nurse comments and quantitative data, including baseline Insomnia Severity Index score and serial sleep efficiency outcomes to investigate the relationships between these. RESULTS: In total, 16 patients, 13 nurses, six practice managers, and one GP were interviewed. Patients had no previous experience of behavioural therapy, needed flexible appointment times, and preferred face-to-face consultations; nurses felt prepared to deliver SRT, accommodating patient concerns, tailoring therapy, and negotiating sleep timings despite treatment complexity and delays between training and intervention delivery. How the intervention produced change was explored, including patient and nurse interactions and patient responses to SRT. Difficulties maintaining SRT, negative attitudes towards treatment, and low self-efficacy were highlighted. Contextual factors, including freeing GP time, time constraints, and conflicting priorities for nurses, with suggestions for alternative delivery options, were raised. Participants who found SRT a positive process showed improvements in sleep efficiency, whereas those who struggled did not. CONCLUSION: SRT was successfully delivered by practice nurses and was generally well received by patients, despite some difficulties delivering and applying the intervention in practice.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Favipiravir for COVID-19 in adults in the community in PRINCIPLE, an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effect of favipiravir treatment of acute COVID-19 on recovery, hospital admissions and longer-term outcomes in community settings is limited. METHODS: In this multicentre. open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial participants aged ≥18 years in the community with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms lasting ≤14 days were randomised to: usual care; usual care plus favipiravir tablets (loading dose of 3600 mg in divided doses on day one, then 800 mg twice a day for four days); or, usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at six months was the primary longer-term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis model included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive mostly COVID vaccinated participants, randomised to favipiravir (n = 1829), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3726). Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the favipiravir group than usual care (estimated hazard ratio 1·23 [95% credible interval 1·14 to 1·33]), a reduction of 2·98 days [1·99 to 3·94] from 16 days in median time to self-reported recovery for favipiravir versus usual care alone. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar (estimated odds ratio 0·99 [0·61 to 1·61]; estimated difference 0% [-0·9% to 0·6%]). 14 serious adverse events occurred in the favipiravir group and 4 in usual care. By six months, the proportion feeling fully recovered was 74·9% for favipiravir versus 71·3% for usual care (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]). INTERPRETATION: In this open-label trial in a largely vaccinated population with COVID-19 in the community, favipiravir did not reduce hospital admissions, but shortened time to recovery and had a marginal positive impact on long term outcomes.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Development and evaluation of rapid data-enabled access to routine clinical information to enhance early recruitment to the national clinical platform trial of COVID-19 community treatments.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for rapidly designing, initiating, and delivering therapeutic clinical trials. PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses) is the UK national platform investigating repurposed therapies for COVID-19 treatment of older people in the community at high risk of complications. Standard methods of patient recruitment were failing to meet the required pace and scale of enrolment. This paper describes the development and appraisal of a near real-time, data-driven, ethical approach for enhancing recruitment in community care by contacting people with a recent COVID-19 positive test result from the central NHS Test and Trace service within approximately 24-48 h of their test result. METHODS: A multi-disciplinary team was formed to solve the technical, ethical, public perception, logistical and information governance issues required to provide a near-real time (approximately within 24-48 h of receiving a positive test) feed of potential trial participants from test result data to the research team. PRINCIPLE was also given unique access to the Summary Care Record (SCR) to ensure safe prescribing, and to enable the trial team to quickly and safely bring consented patients into the trial. A survey of the public was used to understand public perceptions of the use of test data for this proposed methodology. RESULTS: Prior to establishing the data service, PRINCIPLE registered on average 87 participants per week. This increased by up to 87 additional people registered per week from the test data, contributing to an increase from 1013 recruits to PRINCIPLE at the start of October 2020 to 2802 recruits by 20 December 2020. Whilst procedural caveats were identified by the public consultation, out of 2639 people contacted by PRINCIPLE following a positive test result, no one raised a concern about being approached. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes a novel approach to using near-real time NHS operational data to recruit community-based patients within a few days of presentation with acute illness. This approach increased recruitment and reduced time between positive test and randomisation, allowing more rapid evaluation of treatments and increased safety for participants. End-to-end public and patient involvement in the design of the approach provided evidence to inform information governance decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRINCIPLE is funded by UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research. EudraCT number: 2020-001209-22 . 26/03/2020 ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580 . 20/03/2020 REC number: 20/SC/058 IRAS number: 281958.

Change in glomerular filtration rate over time in the Oxford Renal Cohort Study: observational study.

BACKGROUND: Decline in kidney function can result in adverse health outcomes. The Oxford Renal Cohort Study has detailed baseline assessments from 884 participants ≥60 years of age. AIM: To determine the proportion of participants with a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), identify determinants of decline, and determine proportions with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remission. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational cohort study in UK primary care. METHOD: Data were used from baseline and annual follow-up assessments to monitor change in kidney function. Rapid eGFR decline was defined as eGFR decrease >5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, improvement as eGFR increase >5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, and remission in those with CKD at baseline and eGFR >60 ml/min/1.73 m2 during follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify factors associated with eGFR decline. RESULTS: There was a net decline in eGFR in the 884 participants over 5 years of follow-up. In 686 participants with >2 eGFR tests with a median follow-up of 2.1 years, 164 (24%) evidenced rapid GFR decline, 185 (27%) experienced eGFR improvement, and 82 of 394 (21%) meeting CKD stage 1-4 at baseline experienced remission. In the multivariable analysis, smoking status, higher systolic blood pressure, and being known to have CKD at cohort entry were associated with rapid GFR decline. Those with CKD stage 3 at baseline were less likely to exhibit GFR decline compared with normal kidney function. CONCLUSION: This study established that 24% of people evidenced rapid GFR decline whereas 21% evidenced remission of CKD. People at risk of rapid GFR decline may benefit from closer monitoring and appropriate treatment to minimise risks of adverse outcomes, although only a small proportion meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for referral to secondary care.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Prevalence and factors associated with multimorbidity among primary care patients with decreased renal function.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the prevalence of multimorbidity in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1-5 and transiently impaired renal function and identify factors associated with multimorbidity. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study in UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 861 participants aged 60 and older with decreased renal function of whom, 584 (65.8%) had CKD and 277 (32.2%) did not have CKD. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent medical history and clinical assessment, and blood and urine sampling. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Multimorbidity was defined as presence of ≥2 chronic conditions including CKD. Prevalence of each condition, co-existing conditions and multimorbidity were described and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of multimorbidity. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age of participants was 74±7 years, 54% were women and 98% were white. After CKD, the next most prevalent condition was hypertension (n = 511, 59.3%), followed by obesity (n = 265, 30.8%) ischemic heart disease (n = 145, 16.8%) and diabetes (n = 133, 15.4%). Having two co-existing conditions was most common (27%), the most common combination of which was hypertension and obesity (29%). One or three conditions was the next most prevalent combination (20% and 21% respectively). The prevalence of multimorbidity was 73.9% (95%CI 70.9-76.8) in all participants and 86.6% (95%CI 83.9-89.3) in those with any-stage CKD. Logistic regression found a significant association between increasing age (OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.04-0.10), increasing BMI (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.10-1.20) and decreasing eGFR (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00) with multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis is the first to provide an accurate estimate of the prevalence of multimorbidity in a screened older primary care population living with or at risk of CKD across all stages. Hypertension and obesity were the most common combination of conditions other than CKD that people were living with, suggesting that there may be multiple reasons for closely monitoring health status in individuals with CKD.

Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure (HOME BP) using a digital intervention in poorly controlled hypertension: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The HOME BP (Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure) trial aimed to test a digital intervention for hypertension management in primary care by combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management. DESIGN: Unmasked randomised controlled trial with automated ascertainment of primary endpoint. SETTING: 76 general practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 622 people with treated but poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) and access to the internet. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised by using a minimisation algorithm to self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital intervention (305 participants) or usual care (routine hypertension care, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner; 317 participants). The digital intervention provided feedback of blood pressure results to patients and professionals with optional lifestyle advice and motivational support. Target blood pressure for hypertension, diabetes, and people aged 80 or older followed UK national guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure (mean of second and third readings) after one year, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target, age, and practice, with multiple imputation for missing values. RESULTS: After one year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean blood pressure dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of -3.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -6.1 to -0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic blood pressure of -0.5 mm Hg (-1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Results were comparable in the complete case analysis and adverse effects were similar between groups. Within trial costs showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £11 ($15, €12; 95% confidence interval £6 to £29) per mm Hg reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored blood pressure led to better control of systolic blood pressure after one year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13790648.

Doxycycline for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at high risk of adverse outcomes in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.

Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE (PRINCIPLE): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform, trial of community treatment of COVID-19 syndromic illness in people at higher risk.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50-64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 'hot hubs' and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86534580.