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.

Effect of Antihypertensive Medication Reduction vs Usual Care on Short-term Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension Aged 80 Years and Older: The OPTIMISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.

Functional imaging and circulating biomarkers of response to regorafenib in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients in a prospective phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: Regorafenib demonstrated efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Lack of predictive biomarkers, potential toxicities and cost-effectiveness concerns highlight the unmet need for better patient selection. DESIGN: Patients with RAS mutant mCRC with biopsiable metastases were enrolled in this phase II trial. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI was acquired pretreatment and at day 15 post-treatment. Median values of volume transfer constant (Ktrans), enhancing fraction (EF) and their product KEF (summarised median values of Ktrans× EF) were generated. Circulating tumour (ct) DNA was collected monthly until progressive disease and tested for clonal RAS mutations by digital-droplet PCR. Tumour vasculature (CD-31) was scored by immunohistochemistry on 70 sequential tissue biopsies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with paired DCE-MRI scans were analysed. Median KEF decrease was 58.2%. Of the 23 patients with outcome data, >70% drop in KEF (6/23) was associated with higher disease control rate (p=0.048) measured by RECIST V. 1.1 at 2 months, improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.16 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.72), p=0.02), 4-month PFS (66.7% vs 23.5%) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.08 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.63), p=0.02). KEF drop correlated with CD-31 reduction in sequential tissue biopsies (p=0.04). RAS mutant clones decay in ctDNA after 8 weeks of treatment was associated with better PFS (HR 0.21 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.71), p=0.01) and OS (HR 0.28 (95% CI 0.07-1.04), p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Combining DCE-MRI and ctDNA predicts duration of anti-angiogenic response to regorafenib and may improve patient management with potential health/economic implications.

Effect of antihypertensive deprescribing on hospitalisation and mortality: long-term follow-up of the OPTiMISE randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with low blood pressure and frailty. The OPTiMISE trial showed that this deprescribing can be achieved with no differences in blood pressure control at 3 months compared with usual care. We aimed to examine effects of deprescribing on longer-term hospitalisation and mortality. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial enrolled participants from 69 general practices across central and southern England. Participants aged 80 years or older, with systolic blood pressure less than 150 mm Hg and who were receiving two or more antihypertensive medications, were randomly assigned (1:1) to antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of one antihypertensive) or usual care. General practitioners and participants were aware of the treatment allocation following randomisation but individuals responsible for analysing the data were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. Participants were followed up via their primary and secondary care electronic health records at least 3 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was time to all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. Intention-to-treat analyses were done using Cox regression modelling. A per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome was also done, excluding participants from the intervention group who did not reduce treatment or who had medication reinstated during the initial trial 12-week follow-up period. This study is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT2016-004236-38) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97503221). FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and Sept 30, 2018, a total of 569 participants were randomly assigned. Of these, 564 (99%; intervention=280; control=284) were followed up for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 3·7-4·3). Participants had a mean age of 84·8 years (SD 3·4) at baseline and 273 (48%) were women. Medication reduction was sustained in 109 participants at follow-up (51% of the 213 participants alive in the intervention group). Participants in the intervention group had a larger reduction in antihypertensives than the control group (adjusted mean difference -0·35 drugs [95% CI -0·52 to -0·18]). Overall, 202 (72%) participants in the intervention group and 218 (77%) participants in the control group experienced hospitalisation or mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·76 to 1·12]). There was some evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome in the per-protocol population was lower in the intervention group (aHR 0·80 [0·64 to 1·00]). INTERPRETATION: Half of participants sustained medication reduction with no evidence of an increase in all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. These findings suggest that an antihypertensive deprescribing intervention might be safe for people aged 80 years or older with controlled blood pressure taking two or more antihypertensives. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Generalizability of Blood Pressure Lowering Trials to Older Patients: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials are used to inform clinical guidelines on the management of hypertension in older adults, but it is unclear to what extent these trials represent the general population attending routine clinical practice. This study aimed to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for hypertension trials conducted in older people. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A total of 24 general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymized electronic health record data from all individuals aged 80 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for two previous medication intensification trials (HYVET, SPRINT) and one medication reduction trial (OPTiMISE). A logistic regression model was constructed to estimate predictors of eligibility for each trial. RESULTS: Of 15,376 patients identified, 268 (1.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-2.0%), 5,290 (34.4%; 95%CI = 33.7-35.2%), and 3,940 (25.6%; 95%CI = 24.9-26.3%) were eligible for the HYVET, SPRINT, and OPTiMISE trials, respectively. Between 5.6% and 30.7% of exclusions from each trial were due to eligibility criteria excluding those with high or uncontrolled blood pressure. Frailty (odds ratio [OR] = .44; 95%CI = .36-.54 [OPTiMISE]), cardiovascular polypharmacy (OR = .61; 95%CI = .55-.68 [SPRINT]) and multimorbidity (OR = .72; 95%CI = .64-.82 [SPRINT]) were associated with a lower likelihood of being eligible for one or more of the trials. CONCLUSION: A possible unintended consequence of blood pressure criteria used by trials attempting to answer different primary questions is that for many older patients, no trial evidence exists to inform treatment decisions in routine practice. Caution should be exercised when applying results from existing trials to patients with frailty or multimorbidity.

A randomised controlled trial of blood pressure self-monitoring in the management of hypertensive pregnancy. OPTIMUM-BP: A feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a blood pressure self-monitoring intervention for managing pregnancy hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: OPTIMUM-BP was an unmasked randomised controlled trial comparing a self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) intervention versus usual care for the management of pregnancy hypertension. Women with chronic (CH) or gestational hypertension (GH) from 4 UK centres were randomised (2:1) intervention to control. Self-monitoring involved daily home blood pressure (BP) measurements, with recording via study diary or telemonitoring. Clinicians were invited to use the home readings in clinical and antihypertensive titration decisions. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were recruitment, retention, adherence and persistence with the intervention. RESULTS: Women from four UK centres were randomised: 158/222 (71%) of those approached agreed, comprising: 86 women with chronic hypertension (55 SMBP, 31 control) and 72 with gestational hypertension (49 SMBP, 23 control) of whom outcome data were available from 154 (97%) and were included in the analysis. The median (IQR) number of days with home BP readings per week were 5.5 (3.1-6.5) for those with chronic hypertension and 6.1 (4.5-6.7) with gestational hypertension. Participants persisted with the intervention for 80% or more of their time from enrolment until delivery in 86% (43/50) and 76% (38/49) of those with chronic and gestational hypertension respectively. Recorded clinic and study BPs were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomised investigation of BP self-monitoring for the management of pregnancy hypertension and indicates that a large RCT would be feasible.

OPtimising Treatment for MIld Systolic hypertension in the Elderly (OPTiMISE): protocol for a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence suggests that larger blood pressure reductions and multiple antihypertensive drugs may be harmful in older people, particularly frail individuals with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. However, there is a lack of evidence to support deprescribing of antihypertensives, which limits the practice of medication reduction in routine clinical care. The aim of this trial is to examine whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible in older patients without significant changes in blood pressure control at follow-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will use a primary care-based, open-label, randomised controlled trial design. A total of 540 participants will be recruited, aged ≥80 years, with systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg and receiving ≥2 antihypertensive medications. Participants will have no compelling indication for medication continuation and will be considered to potentially benefit from medication reduction due to existing polypharmacy, comorbidity and frailty. Following a baseline appointment, individuals will be randomised to a strategy of medication reduction (intervention) with optional self-monitoring or usual care (control). Those in the intervention group will have one antihypertensive medication stopped. The primary outcome will be to determine if a reduction in medication can achieve a proportion of participants with clinically safe blood pressure levels at 12-week follow-up (defined as a systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg), which is non-inferior (within 10%) to that achieved by the usual care group. Qualitative interviews will be used to understand the barriers and facilitators to medication reduction. The study will use economic modelling to predict the long-term effects of any observed changes in blood pressure and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, informed consent form, participant information sheet and all other participant facing material have been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central-Oxford A; ref 16/SC/0628), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (ref 21584/0371/001-0001), host institution(s) and Health Research Authority. All research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN97503221; Pre-results.