Development of an integrated and decentralised skin health strategy to improve experiences of skin neglected tropical diseases and other skin conditions in Atwima Mponua District, Ghana.

Integrated strategies are recommended to tackle neglected tropical diseases of the skin (skin NTDs), which pose a substantial health and economic burden in many countries, including Ghana. We describe the development of an integrated and decentralised skin health strategy designed to improve experiences of skin NTDs in Atwima Mponua district in Ashanti Region. A multidisciplinary research team led an iterative process to develop an overall strategy and specific interventions, based on a theory of change informed by formative research conducted in Atwima Mponua district. The process involved preparatory work, four co-development workshops (August 2021 to November 2022), collaborative working groups to operationalise intervention components, and obtaining ethical approval. Stakeholders including affected individuals, caregivers, other community members and actors from different levels of the health system participated in co-development activities. We consulted these stakeholders at each stage of the research process, including discussion of study findings, development of our theory of change, identifying implementable solutions to identified challenges, and protocol development. Participants determined that the intervention should broadly address wounds and other skin conditions, rather than only skin NTDs, and should avoid reliance on non-governmental organisations and research teams to ensure sustainable implementation by district health teams and transferability elsewhere. The overall strategy was designed to focus on a decentralised model of care for skin conditions, while including other interventions to support a self-care delivery pathway, community engagement, and referral. Our theory of change describes the pathways through which these interventions are expected to achieve the strategy's aim, the assumptions, and problems addressed. This complex intervention strategy has been designed to respond to the local context, while maximising transferability to ensure wider relevance. Implementation is expected to begin in 2023.

Buruli-RifDACC: Evaluation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose rifampicin on outcomes in Mycobacteriumulcerans disease, a protocol for a randomised controlled trial in Ghana.

Background: Buruli ulcer (BU) can lead to disfiguring ulcers and permanent disability. The 2030 World Health Organization (WHO) road map for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) calls for major scaling up in diagnosis and management to eliminate disability due to the disease. Current treatment for BU is with daily oral rifampicin (10mg/kg dose) and clarithromycin (15mg/kg dose) for eight weeks, combined with standard gauze wound dressings. Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)-coated dressings have been shown to irreversibly bind bacteria on wound surfaces resulting in their removal when dressings are changed. This trial aims to determine whether combining a high-dose oral rifampicin regimen with DACC dressings can improve the rate of wound healing relative to standard-dose oral rifampicin combined with DACC dressings. Methods: This is an individual, multi-centre Phase 3 randomised controlled trial, which will be conducted in three clinical sites in Ghana. The primary outcome measure will be the mean time to clearance of viable mycobacteria. Cost and health-related quality of life data will be collected, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. Discussion: The findings from this trial could lead to a change in how BU is treated. A shorter but more efficacious regimen would lead to improved treatment outcomes and potentially substantial financial and economic savings. Trial registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Repository (registration number; PACTR202011867644311). Registered on 30 th November 2020.

Buruli ulcer (BU), caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans, manifests clinically as a wound or swelling. There are several approaches for managing this condition. One is the availability of two antibiotics, usually rifampicin in combination with clarithromycin, that can be used to treat the disease. Rifampicin is thought to be the most important of these two drugs. Scientists have found out that a higher dose of rifampicin is safe and may help improve healing outcome and shorten the duration of treatment. Individuals with BU wounds also go through wound dressing procedures at their hospitals and health centres. Commonly, wounds are dressed using Vaseline gauze and bandages. However, it has been observed that some affected individuals heal faster than others even with the antibiotic treatment. Some still have living organisms in their wounds many weeks after the antibiotic treatment. There is a new dressing material called DACC which is believed to permanently bind bacteria on the wound surface leading to their removal when the dressings are changed. This may be a good way to treat and prevent infection without the use of more drugs. This study aims to determine whether combining a high-dose oral rifampicin regimen with DACC dressings can improve the rate of wound healing relative to standard-dose oral rifampicin combined with DACC dressings. Furthermore, cost and health-related quality of life data will be collected and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The findings from this trial could lead to a change in how BU is treated. A shorter but more efficacious regimen would lead to improved treatment outcomes and potentially substantial financial and economic savings.

Economic threshold analysis of delivering a task-sharing treatment for common mental disorders at scale: the Friendship Bench, Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Task-sharing treatment approaches offer a pragmatic approach to treating common mental disorders in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Friendship Bench (FB), developed in Zimbabwe with increasing adoption in other LMICs, is one example of this type of treatment model using lay health workers (LHWs) to deliver treatment. OBJECTIVE: To consider the level of treatment coverage required for a recent scale-up of the FB in Zimbabwe to be considered cost-effective. METHODS: A modelling-based deterministic threshold analysis conducted within a 'cost-utility' framework using a recommended cost-effectiveness threshold. FINDINGS: The FB would need to treat an additional 3413 service users (10 per active LHW per year) for its scale-up to be considered cost-effective. This assumes a level of treatment effect observed under clinical trial conditions. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $191 per year lived with disability avoided, assuming treatment coverage levels reported during 2020. The required treatment coverage for a cost-effective outcome is within the level of treatment coverage observed during 2020 and remained so even when assuming significantly compromised levels of treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: The economic case for a scaled-up delivery of the FB appears convincing in principle and its adoption at scale in LMIC settings should be given serious consideration. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Further evidence on the types of scale-up strategies that are likely to offer an effective and cost-effective means of sustaining required levels of treatment coverage will help focus efforts on approaches to scale-up that optimise resources invested in task-sharing programmes.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with standardised medical care for adults with dissociative non-epileptic seizures: the CODES RCT.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative (non-epileptic) seizures are potentially treatable by psychotherapeutic interventions; however, the evidence for this is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-arm, mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. SETTING: This took place in 27 UK-based neurology/epilepsy services, 17 liaison psychiatry/neuropsychiatry services and 18 cognitive-behavioural therapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous year and meeting other eligibility criteria were recruited to a screening phase from neurology/epilepsy services between October 2014 and February 2017. After psychiatric assessment around 3 months later, eligible and interested participants were randomised between January 2015 and May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised medical care consisted of input from neurologists and psychiatrists who were given guidance regarding diagnosis delivery and management; they provided patients with information booklets. The intervention consisted of 12 dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy 1-hour sessions (plus one booster session) that were delivered by trained therapists, in addition to standardised medical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was monthly seizure frequency at 12 months post randomisation. The secondary outcomes were aspects of seizure occurrence, quality of life, mood, anxiety, distress, symptoms, psychosocial functioning, clinical global change, satisfaction with treatment, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 698 patients were screened and 368 were randomised (standardised medical care alone, n = 182; and cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care, n = 186). Primary outcome data were obtained for 85% of participants. An intention-to-treat analysis with multivariate imputation by chained equations revealed no significant between-group difference in dissociative seizure frequency at 12 months [standardised medical care: median of seven dissociative seizures (interquartile range 1-35 dissociative seizures); cognitive-behavioural therapy and standardised medical care: median of four dissociative seizures (interquartile range 0-20 dissociative seizures); incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.09; p = 0.144]. Of the 16 secondary outcomes analysed, nine were significantly better in the arm receiving cognitive-behavioural therapy at a p-value < 0.05, including the following at a p-value ≤ 0.001: the longest dissociative seizure-free period in months 7-12 inclusive post randomisation (incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.20; p = 0.001); better psychosocial functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale, standardised treatment effect -0.39, 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.18; p < 0.001); greater self-rated and clinician-rated clinical improvement (self-rated: standardised treatment effect 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.62; p = 0.001; clinician rated: standardised treatment effect 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.57; p < 0.001); and satisfaction with treatment (standardised treatment effect 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.73; p < 0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar across arms. Cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care produced 0.0152 more quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.0106 to 0.0392 quality-adjusted life-years) than standardised medical care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) for cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care versus standardised medical care alone based on the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and imputed data was £120,658. In sensitivity analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between £85,724 and £206,067. Qualitative and quantitative process evaluations highlighted useful study components, the importance of clinical experience in treating patients with dissociative seizures and potential benefits of our multidisciplinary care pathway. LIMITATIONS: Unlike outcome assessors, participants and clinicians were not blinded to the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant additional benefit of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy in reducing dissociative seizure frequency, and cost-effectiveness over standardised medical care was low. However, this large, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial highlights benefits of adjunctive dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for several clinical outcomes, with no evidence of greater harm from dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy. FUTURE WORK: Examination of moderators and mediators of outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544. 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. 25, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Dissociative seizures resemble epileptic seizures or faints, but can be distinguished from them by trained doctors. Dissociation is the medical word for a 'trance-like' or 'switching off' state. People with dissociative seizures commonly have other psychological or physical problems. Quality of life may be low. The condition accounts for about one in every six patients seen in hospitals because of seizures. We wanted to find out if people with dissociative seizures receiving standardised treatment would also benefit from a talking therapy, called cognitive­behavioural therapy, made specific to this disorder. We did a randomised controlled trial to find out if people with dissociative seizures given standardised treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy (talking therapy) would do better than those given standardised treatment alone. Standardised treatment of dissociative seizures began with careful diagnosis from a neurologist and then further assessment and treatment from a psychiatrist. In total, 368 people with dissociative seizures participated, with half receiving standardised treatment alone and half having talking therapy plus standardised treatment. We measured seizures and psychological and physical health in both trial groups. We also investigated whether or not cognitive­behavioural therapy was good value for money. After 12 months, patients in both trial groups seemed to have fewer monthly seizures, but there was no advantage in the talking therapy group. Patients in the talking therapy group had more consecutive days without seizures, reporting less impact from them in everyday situations. Patients in the talking therapy group, and their doctors, considered improvements to be better, and patients in this group reported greater satisfaction with treatment. However, the talking therapy was expensive and not as cost-effective as hoped. Interviews with patients and study clinicians showed that they valued aspects of both treatments and of the care provided by the multidisciplinary teams. Overall, cognitive­behavioural therapy designed for dissociative seizures plus standardised treatment was not better at reducing the total numbers of seizures reported, but did produce several positive benefits for participants compared with standardised treatment alone.

Psychological and demographic characteristics of 368 patients with dissociative seizures: data from the CODES cohort.

BACKGROUND: We examined demographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics of a large cohort (n = 368) of adults with dissociative seizures (DS) recruited to the CODES randomised controlled trial (RCT) and explored differences associated with age at onset of DS, gender, and DS semiology. METHODS: Prior to randomisation within the CODES RCT, we collected demographic and clinical data on 368 participants. We assessed psychiatric comorbidity using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) and a screening measure of personality disorder and measured anxiety, depression, psychological distress, somatic symptom burden, emotional expression, functional impact of DS, avoidance behaviour, and quality of life. We undertook comparisons based on reported age at DS onset (<40 v. ⩾40), gender (male v. female), and DS semiology (predominantly hyperkinetic v. hypokinetic). RESULTS: Our cohort was predominantly female (72%) and characterised by high levels of socio-economic deprivation. Two-thirds had predominantly hyperkinetic DS. Of the total, 69% had ⩾1 comorbid M.I.N.I. diagnosis (median number = 2), with agoraphobia being the most common concurrent diagnosis. Clinical levels of distress were reported by 86% and characteristics associated with maladaptive personality traits by 60%. Moderate-to-severe functional impairment, high levels of somatic symptoms, and impaired quality of life were also reported. Women had a younger age at DS onset than men. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the burden of psychopathology and socio-economic deprivation in a large, heterogeneous cohort of patients with DS. The lack of clear differences based on gender, DS semiology and age at onset suggests these factors do not add substantially to the heterogeneity of the cohort.

Costing the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Economic Evaluation of Hypothetical Suppression Policy in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to cost and calculate the relative cost-effectiveness of the hypothetical suppression policies found in the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team model. METHODS: Key population-level disease projections in deaths, intensive care unit bed days, and non-intensive care unit bed days were taken from the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team report of March 2020, which influenced the decision to introduce suppression policies in the United Kingdom. National income loss estimates were from a study that estimated the impact of a hypothetical pandemic on the UK economy, with sensitivity analyses based on projections that are more recent. Individual quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) loss and costed resource use inputs were taken from published sources. RESULTS: Imperial model projected suppression polices compared to an unmitigated pandemic, even with the most pessimistic national income loss scenarios under suppression (10%), give incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below £50 000 per QALY. Assuming a maximum reduction in national income of 7.75%, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for Imperial model projected suppression versus mitigation are below 60 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Results are uncertain and conditional on the accuracy of the Imperial model projections; they are also sensitive to estimates of national income loss. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to claim that the hypothetical Imperial model-projected suppression policies are obviously cost-ineffective relative to the alternatives available. Despite evolving differences between government policy and Imperial model-projected suppression policy, it is hoped this article will provide some early insight into the trade-offs that are involved.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. METHODS: In this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and May 31, 2017, we randomly assigned 368 patients to receive CBT plus standardised medical care (n=186) or standardised medical care alone (n=182); of whom 313 had primary outcome data at 12 months (156 [84%] of 186 patients in the CBT plus standardised medical care group and 157 [86%] of 182 patients in the standardised medical care group). At 12 months, no significant difference in monthly dissociative seizure frequency was identified between the groups (median 4 seizures [IQR 0-20] in the CBT plus standardised medical care group vs 7 seizures [1-35] in the standardised medical care group; estimated incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·56-1·09]; p=0·144). Dissociative seizures were rated as less bothersome in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference -0·53 [95% CI -0·97 to -0·08]; p=0·020). The CBT plus standardised medical care group had a longer period of dissociative seizure freedom in the previous 6 months (estimated IRR 1·64 [95% CI 1·22 to 2·20]; p=0·001), reported better health-related quality of life on the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Level Health Today visual analogue scale (estimated mean difference 6·16 [95% CI 1·48 to 10·84]; p=0·010), less impairment in psychosocial functioning on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (estimated mean difference -4·12 [95% CI -6·35 to -1·89]; p<0·001), less overall psychological distress than the standardised medical care group on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 scale (estimated mean difference -1·65 [95% CI -2·96 to -0·35]; p=0·013), and fewer somatic symptoms on the modified Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scale (estimated mean difference -1·67 [95% CI -2·90 to -0·44]; p=0·008). Clinical improvement at 12 months was greater in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care alone group as reported by patients (estimated mean difference 0·66 [95% CI 0·26 to 1·04]; p=0·001) and by clinicians (estimated mean difference 0·47 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·73]; p<0·001), and the CBT plus standardised medical care group had greater satisfaction with treatment than did the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·48 to 1·31]; p<0·001). No significant differences in patient-reported seizure severity (estimated mean difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·50 to 0·29]; p=0·593) or seizure freedom in the last 3 months of the study (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1·77 [95% CI 0·93 to 3·37]; p=0·083) were identified between the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were identified in the proportion of patients who had a more than 50% reduction in dissociative seizure frequency compared with baseline (OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·80 to 2·02]; p=0·313). Additionally, the 12-item Short Form survey-version 2 scores (estimated mean difference for the Physical Component Summary score 1·78 [95% CI -0·37 to 3·92]; p=0·105; estimated mean difference for the Mental Component Summary score 2·22 [95% CI -0·30 to 4·75]; p=0·084), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale score (estimated mean difference -1·09 [95% CI -2·27 to 0·09]; p=0·069), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scale depression score (estimated mean difference -1·10 [95% CI -2·41 to 0·21]; p=0·099) did not differ significantly between groups. Changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others) could not be assessed due to insufficient data. During the 12-month period, the number of adverse events was similar between the groups: 57 (31%) of 186 participants in the CBT plus standardised medical care group reported 97 adverse events and 53 (29%) of 182 participants in the standardised medical care group reported 79 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CBT plus standardised medical care had no statistically significant advantage compared with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of monthly seizures. However, improvements were observed in a number of clinically relevant secondary outcomes following CBT plus standardised medical care when compared with standardised medical care alone. Thus, adults with dissociative seizures might benefit from the addition of dissociative seizure-specific CBT to specialist care from neurologists and psychiatrists. Future work is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from a dissociative seizure-specific CBT approach. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme.

Characteristics of 698 patients with dissociative seizures: A UK multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize the demographics of adults with dissociative (nonepileptic) seizures, placing emphasis on distribution of age at onset, male:female ratio, levels of deprivation, and dissociative seizure semiology. METHODS: We collected demographic and clinical data from 698 adults with dissociative seizures recruited to the screening phase of the CODES (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy vs Standardised Medical Care for Adults With Dissociative Non-Epileptic Seizures) trial from 27 neurology/specialist epilepsy clinics in the UK. We described the cohort in terms of age, age at onset of dissociative seizures, duration of seizure disorder, level of socioeconomic deprivation, and other social and clinical demographic characteristics and their associations. RESULTS: In what is, to date, the largest study of adults with dissociative seizures, the overall modal age at dissociative seizure onset was 19 years; median age at onset was 28 years. Although 74% of the sample was female, importantly the male:female ratio varied with age at onset, with 77% of female but only 59% of male participants developing dissociative seizures by the age of 40 years. The frequency of self-reported previous epilepsy was 27%; nearly half of these epilepsy diagnoses were retrospectively considered erroneous by clinicians. Patients with predominantly hyperkinetic dissociative seizures had a shorter disorder duration prior to diagnosis in this study than patients with hypokinetic seizures (P < .001); dissociative seizure type was not associated with gender. Predominantly hyperkinetic seizures were most commonly seen in patients with symptom onset in their late teens. Thirty percent of the sample reported taking antiepileptic drugs; this was more common in men. More than 50% of the sample lived in areas characterized by the highest levels of deprivation, and more than two-thirds were unemployed. SIGNIFICANCE: Females with dissociative seizures were more common at all ages, whereas the proportion of males increased with age at onset. This disorder was associated with socioeconomic deprivation. Those with hypokinetic dissociative seizures may be at risk for delayed diagnosis and treatment.

Persistent physical symptoms reduction intervention: a system change and evaluation (PRINCE)-integrated GP care for persistent physical symptoms: protocol for a feasibility and cluster randomised waiting list, controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent physical symptoms (PPS), also known as medically unexplained symptoms are associated with profound physical disability, psychological distress and high healthcare costs. England's annual National Health Service costs of attempting to diagnose and treat PPS amounts to approximately £3 billion. Current treatment relies on a positive diagnosis, life-style advice and drug therapy. However, many patients continue to suffer from ongoing symptoms and general practitioners (GPs) are challenged to find effective treatments. Training GPs in basic cognitive behavioural skills and providing self-help materials to patients could be useful, but availability in primary care settings is limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised waiting list, controlled trial will be conducted to assess the feasibility of an integrated approach to care in general practice. Approximately 240 patients with PPS will be recruited from 8 to 12 GP practices in London. GP practices will be randomised to 'integrated GP care plus treatment as usual' or waiting list control. Integrated GP care plus treatment as usual will include GP training in cognitive behavioural skills, GP supervision and written and audio visual materials for both GPs and participants. The primary objectives will be assessment of trial and intervention feasibility. Secondary objectives will include estimating the intracluster correlation coefficient for potential outcome measures for cluster effects in a sample size calculation. Feasibility parameters and identification of suitable primary and secondary outcomes for future trial evaluations will be assessed prerandomisation and at 12 and 24 weeks' postrandomisation, using a mixed-methods approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Camberwell St Giles Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. This trial will inform researchers, clinicians, patients and healthcare providers about the feasibility and potential cost-effectiveness of an integrated approach to managing PPS in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02444520; Pre-results.

Rationale and design of: A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The ARREST randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a global public health issue. There is wide variation in both regional and inter-hospital survival rates from OHCA and overall survival remains poor at 7%. Regionalization of care into cardiac arrest centers (CAC) improves outcomes following cardiac arrest from ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) through concentration of services and greater provider experience. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommends delivery of all post-arrest patients to a CAC, but that randomized controlled trials are necessary in patients without ST elevation (STE). METHODS/DESIGN: Following completion of a pilot randomized trial to assess safety and feasibility of conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial in patients following OHCA of presumed cardiac cause without STE, we present the rationale and design of A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation OHCA (ARREST). In total 860 patients will be enrolled and randomized (1:1) to expedited transfer to CAC (24/7 access to interventional cardiology facilities, cooling and goal-directed therapies) or to the current standard of care, which comprises delivery to the nearest emergency department. Primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes are 30-day and 3-month neurological status and 3, 6 and 12-month mortality. Patients will be followed up for one year after enrolment. CONCLUSION: Post-arrest care is time-critical, requires a multi-disciplinary approach and may be more optimally delivered in centers with greater provider experience. This trial would help to demonstrate if regionalization of post-arrest care to CACs reduces mortality in patients without STE, which could dramatically reshape emergency care provision.

Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition resulting in recurrent seizures. Research evidence in long-term conditions suggests that patients benefit from self-management education and that this may improve quality of life (QoL). Epilepsy self-management education has yet to be tested in a UK setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Management education for people with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]. DESIGN: A parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from eight hospitals in London and south-east England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with epilepsy and two or more epileptic seizures in the past year, who were currently being prescribed antiepileptic drugs. INTERVENTION: A 2-day group self-management course alongside treatment as usual (TAU). The control group received TAU. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is QoL in people with epilepsy at 12-month follow-up using the Quality Of Life In Epilepsy 31-P (QOLIE-31-P) scale. Other outcomes were seizure control, impact of epilepsy, medication adverse effects, psychological distress, perceived stigma, self-mastery and medication adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses and a process evaluation were undertaken. RANDOMISATION: A 1 : 1 ratio between trial arms using fixed block sizes of two. BLINDING: Participants were not blinded to their group allocation because of the nature of the study. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis remained blinded throughout. RESULTS: The trial completed successfully. A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study [SMILE (UK), n = 205; TAU, n = 199] with 331 completing the final follow-up at 12 months [SMILE (UK), n = 163; TAU, n = 168]. In the intervention group, 61.5% completed all sessions of the course. No adverse events were found to be related to the intervention. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 41.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years], and had epilepsy for a median of 18 years. The mean QOLIE-31-P score for the whole group at baseline was 66.0 out of 100.0 (SD 14.2). Clinically relevant levels of anxiety symptoms were reported in 53.6% of the group and depression symptoms in 28.0%. The results following an intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in any measures at the 12-month follow-up [QOLIE-31-P: SMILE (UK) mean: 67.4, SD 13.5; TAU mean: 69.5, SD 14.8]. The cost-effectiveness study showed that SMILE (UK) was possibly cost-effective but was also associated with lower QoL. The process evaluation with 20 participants revealed that a group course increased confidence by sharing with others and improved self-management behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: For people with epilepsy and persistent seizures, a 2-day self-management education course is cost-saving, but does not improve QoL after 12-months or reduce anxiety or depression symptoms. A psychological intervention may help with anxiety and depression. Interviewed participants reported attending a group course increased their confidence and helped them improve their self-management. FUTURE WORK: More research is needed on self-management courses, with psychological components and integration with routine monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389. 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. 22, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the responsiveness of and correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P in patients with epilepsy, and develop a mapping function to predict EQ-5D-5L values based on the QOLIE-31P for use in economic evaluations. METHODS: The dataset was derived from two clinical trials, the ZMILE study in the Netherlands and the SMILE study in the UK. In both studies, patients' quality of life using the EQ-5D-5L and QOLIE-31P was measured at baseline and 12 months follow-up. Spearman's correlations, effect sizes (EF) and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated for both the EQ-5D-5L and QOLIE-31P domains and sub scores. Mapping functions were derived using ordinary least square (OLS) and censored least absolute deviations models. RESULTS: A total of 509 patients were included in this study. Low to moderately strong significant correlations were found between both instruments. The EQ-5D-5L showed high ceiling effects and small EFs and SRMs, whereas the QOLIE-31P did not show ceiling effects and also showed small to moderate EFs and SRMs. Results of the different mapping functions indicate that the highest adjusted R 2 we were able to regress was 0.265 using an OLS model with squared terms, leading to a mean absolute error of 0.103. CONCLUSIONS: Results presented in this study emphasize the shortcomings of the EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy and the importance of the development of condition-specific preference-based instruments which can be used within the QALY framework. In addition, the usefulness of the constructed mapping function in economic evaluations is questionable.

The Societal Cost of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cost-of-illness (COI) studies provide useful information on the economic burden that schizophrenia imposes on a society. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to give a general overview of COI studies for schizophrenia and to compare the societal cost of schizophrenia across countries. It also aims to identify the main cost components of schizophrenia and factors associated with higher societal cost to improve the quality and reporting of COI studies for schizophrenia. METHODS: We performed an electronic search on multiple databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Management Information Consortium [HMIC] and the System for Information on Grey Literature [openSIGLE]) to identify COI studies of schizophrenia published between 1996 and 2016. The primary outcome of this review was societal cost per schizophrenia patient, by cost component. All costs were converted to $US, year 2015 values. RESULTS: We included 19 studies in this review. The annual societal cost per patient varied from $US5818 in Thailand to $US94,587 in Norway; whereas the lifetime societal cost per patient was estimated to be $US988,264 in Australia (all year 2015 values). The main cost drivers were direct healthcare costs and productivity losses. Factors associated with higher individual costs included patient demographics, severity of disease and methods used to calculate the costs of productivity losses and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the large economic burden of schizophrenia. The magnitude of the cost estimates differs considerably across countries, which might be caused by different economic conditions and healthcare systems and widespread methodological heterogeneity among COI studies. Proposed recommendations based on this review can be used to improve the consistency and comparability of COI studies for schizophrenia.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of body psychotherapy in the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The negative symptoms of schizophrenia significantly impact on quality of life and social functioning, and current treatment options are limited. In this study the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group body psychotherapy as a treatment for negative symptoms were compared with an active control. DESIGN: A parallel-arm, multisite randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was conducted independently of the research team, using a 1 : 1 computer-generated sequence. Assessors and statisticians were blinded to treatment allocation. Analysis was conducted following the intention-to-treat principle. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, a health and social care perspective was adopted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: age 18-65 years; diagnosis of schizophrenia with symptoms present at > 6 months; score of ≥ 18 on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative symptoms subscale; no change in medication type in past 6 weeks; willingness to participate; ability to give informed consent; and community outpatient. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: inability to participate in the groups and insufficient command of English. SETTINGS: Participants were recruited from NHS mental health community services in five different Trusts. All groups took place in local community spaces. INTERVENTIONS: Control intervention: a 10-week, 90-minute, 20-session group beginners' Pilates class, run by a qualified Pilates instructor. Treatment intervention: a 10-week, 90-minute, 20-session manualised group body psychotherapy group, run by a qualified dance movement psychotherapist. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the PANSS negative symptoms subscale score at end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included measures of psychopathology, functional, social, service use and treatment satisfaction outcomes, both at treatment end and at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 275 participants were randomised (140 body psychotherapy group, 135 Pilates group). At the end of treatment, 264 participants were assessed (137 body psychotherapy group, 127 Pilates group). The adjusted difference in means of the PANSS negative subscale at the end of treatment was 0.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.11 to 1.17], showing no advantage of the intervention. In the secondary outcomes, the mean difference in the Clinical Assessment Interview for negative symptoms expression subscale at the end of treatment was 0.62 (95% CI -1.23 to 0.00), and in extrapyramidal movement disorder symptoms -0.65 (95% CI -1.13 to -0.16) at the end of treatment and -0.58 (95% CI -1.07 to -0.09) at 6 months' follow-up, showing a small significant advantage of body psychotherapy. No serious adverse events related to the interventions were reported. The total costs of the intervention were comparable with the control, with no clear evidence of cost-effectiveness for either condition. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the absence of a treatment-as-usual arm, it is difficult to determine whether or not both arms are an improvement over routine care. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with an active control, group body psychotherapy does not have a clinically relevant beneficial effect in the treatment of patients with negative symptoms of schizophrenia. These findings conflict with the review that led to the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggesting that arts therapies may be an effective treatment for negative symptoms. FUTURE WORK: Determining whether or not this lack of effectiveness extends to all types of art therapies would be informative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN842165587. 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. 20, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparing service use and costs among adolescents with autism spectrum disorders, special needs and typical development.

Autism spectrum disorder is a complex condition that requires specialised care. Knowledge of the costs of autism spectrum disorder, especially in comparison with other conditions, may be useful to galvanise policymakers and leverage investment in education and intervention to mitigate aspects of autism spectrum disorder that negatively impact individuals with the disorder and their families. This article describes the services and associated costs for four groups of individuals: adolescents with autistic disorder, adolescents with other autism spectrum disorders, adolescents with other special educational needs and typically developing adolescents using data from a large, well-characterised cohort assessed as part of the UK Special Needs and Autism Project at the age of 12 years. Average total costs per participant over 6 months were highest in the autistic disorder group (£11,029), followed by the special educational needs group (£9268), the broader autism spectrum disorder group (£8968) and the typically developing group (£2954). Specialised day or residential schooling accounted for the vast majority of costs. In regression analysis, lower age and lower adaptive functioning were associated with higher costs in the groups with an autism spectrum disorder. Sex, ethnicity, number of International Classification of Diseases (10th revision) symptoms, autism spectrum disorder symptom scores and levels of mental health difficulties were not associated with cost.

Service use and costs for people with long-term neurological conditions in the first year following discharge from in-patient neuro-rehabilitation: a longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the configuration and costs of community rehabilitation and support for people with long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs) is needed to inform future service development and resource allocation. In a multicentre prospective cohort study evaluating community service delivery during the year post-discharge from in-patient neuro-rehabilitation, a key objective was to determine service use, costs, and predictors of these costs. METHODS: Patients consecutively admitted over one year to all nine London specialised (Level 1) in-patient neuro-rehabilitation units were recruited on discharge. They or their carers completed postal/web-based questionnaires at discharge and six and twelve months later, providing demographic data and measures of impairment, disability, service needs and provision. This paper describes health and social care service use, informal care and associated costs. Regression models using non-parametric boot-strapping identified predictors of costs over time. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients provided consistent data. Mean formal service costs fell significantly from £13,290 (sd £19,369) during the first six months to £9,335 (sd £19,036) from six-twelve months, (t = 2.35, P<0.05), mainly due to declining health service use. At six months, informal care was received on average for 8.2 hours/day, mean cost £14,615 (sd 23,305), comprising 52% of overall care costs. By twelve months, it had increased to 8.8 hours per day, mean cost £15,468 (sd £25,534), accounting for 62% of overall care costs. Being younger and more disabled predicted higher formal care costs, explaining 32% and 30% of the variation in costs respectively at six and twelve months. CONCLUSION: Community services for people with LTNCs carry substantial costs that shift from health to social care over time, increasing the burden on families. Prioritising rehabilitation services towards those in greatest need could limit access to others needing on-going support to promote their independence and reduce their reliance on families. This argues for greater investment in future rehabilitation services.