Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. 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. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

Analysing the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT): a cautionary tale from the RATULS trial.

Many studies of stroke rehabilitation use the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) as an outcome, which measures upper limb function by scoring the ability to complete functional tasks. This report describes an issue encountered when analysing the ARAT subscales in a trial of upper limb therapies after stroke. The subscales of the ARAT at three months followed a 'U-shaped' distribution, and therefore, comparing means or medians was not appropriate. A simple alternative approach was chosen that dichotomised the subscales. When analysing the ARAT, the shape of the distributions must be checked in order to choose the most appropriate descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. In particular, if the data follows a 'U-shaped' distribution, a simple dichotomising or a more sophisticated approach is needed. These should also be considered for heavily skewed distributions, often arising from substantial floor or ceiling effects. Inappropriate analyses can lead to misleading conclusions.

Evaluation of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke trial: descriptive analysis of intervention fidelity, goal selection and goal achievement.

OBJECTIVE: To report the fidelity of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after stroke (RATULS) randomized controlled trial, the types of goals selected and the proportion of goals achieved. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of data on fidelity, goal selection and achievement from an intervention group within a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Out-patient stroke rehabilitation within four UK NHS centres. SUBJECTS: 259 participants with moderate-severe upper limb activity limitation (Action Research Arm Test 0-39) between one week and five years post first stroke. INTERVENTION: The enhanced upper limb therapy programme aimed to provide 36 one-hour sessions, including 45 minutes of face-to-face therapy focusing on personal goals, over 12 weeks. RESULTS: 7877/9324 (84%) sessions were attended; a median of 34 [IQR 29-36] per participant. A median of 127 [IQR 70-190] repetitions were achieved per participant per session attended. Based upon the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, goal categories were: self-care 1449/2664 (54%); productivity 374/2664 (14%); leisure 180/2664 (7%) and 'other' 661/2664 (25%). For the 2051/2664 goals for which data were available, 1287 (51%) were achieved, ranging between 27% by participants more than 12 months post stroke with baseline Action Research Arm Test scores 0-7, and 88% by those less than three months after stroke with scores 8-19. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention fidelity was high. Goals relating to self-care were most commonly selected. The proportion of goals achieved varied, depending on time post stroke and baseline arm activity limitation.

Robot-assisted training compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care for upper limb functional limitation after stroke: the RATULS three-group RCT.

BACKGROUND: Loss of arm function is common after stroke. Robot-assisted training may improve arm outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted training, compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, observer-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. SETTING: The trial was set in four NHS trial centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years following first stroke, were recruited. INTERVENTIONS: Robot-assisted training using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system (InMotion commercial version, Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme comprising repetitive functional task practice, and usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was upper limb functional recovery 'success' (assessed using the Action Research Arm Test) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months were the Action Research Arm Test results, upper limb impairment (measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment), activities of daily living (measured using the Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index), quality of life (measured using the Stroke Impact Scale), resource use costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 770 participants were randomised (robot-assisted training, n = 257; enhanced upper limb therapy, n = 259; usual care, n = 254). Upper limb functional recovery 'success' was achieved in the robot-assisted training [103/232 (44%)], enhanced upper limb therapy [118/234 (50%)] and usual care groups [85/203 (42%)]. These differences were not statistically significant; the adjusted odds ratios were as follows: robot-assisted training versus usual care, 1.2 (98.33% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.0); enhanced upper limb therapy versus usual care, 1.5 (98.33% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.5); and robot-assisted training versus enhanced upper limb therapy, 0.8 (98.33% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3). The robot-assisted training group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale) than the usual care group at 3 and 6 months. The enhanced upper limb therapy group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale), better mobility (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale mobility domain) and better performance in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the usual care group, at 3 months. The robot-assisted training group performed less well in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the enhanced upper limb therapy group at 3 months. No other differences were clinically important and statistically significant. Participants found the robot-assisted training and the enhanced upper limb therapy group programmes acceptable. Neither intervention, as provided in this trial, was cost-effective at current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence willingness-to-pay thresholds for a quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted training did not improve upper limb function compared with usual care. Although robot-assisted training improved upper limb impairment, this did not translate into improvements in other outcomes. Enhanced upper limb therapy resulted in potentially important improvements on upper limb impairment, in performance of activities of daily living, and in mobility. Neither intervention was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research is needed to find ways to translate the improvements in upper limb impairment seen with robot-assisted training into improvements in upper limb function and activities of daily living. Innovations to make rehabilitation programmes more cost-effective are required. LIMITATIONS: Pragmatic inclusion criteria led to the recruitment of some participants with little prospect of recovery. The attrition rate was higher in the usual care group than in the robot-assisted training or enhanced upper limb therapy groups, and differential attrition is a potential source of bias. Obtaining accurate information about the usual care that participants were receiving was a challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69371850. 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. 24, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many people who have arm weakness following a stroke feel that insufficient attention is paid by rehabilitation services to recovery of their arm. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear how best to provide rehabilitation to optimise recovery, but robot-assisted training and therapy programmes that focus on practising functional tasks are promising and require further evaluation. The Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke (RATULS) trial evaluated three approaches to rehabilitation for people with moderate or severe difficulty using their arm. These approaches were robot-assisted training using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system (InMotion commercial version, Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme based on repetitive practice of functional tasks and usual care. Robot-assisted training and the enhanced upper limb therapy programme were provided in an outpatient setting for 45 minutes per session, three times per week, for 12 weeks, in addition to usual care. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system was selected as it was felt to be the best available technology. The participant sits at a table, places their affected arm onto the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus arm support and attempts to move their arm to play a game on the computer screen. Movements are assisted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus if the patient cannot perform the movements themselves. The results of the RATULS trial show that robot-assisted training did not result in additional improvement in stroke survivors' arm use when compared with the enhanced upper limb therapy programme or usual care. Stroke survivors who received enhanced upper limb therapy experienced meaningful improvements in undertaking activities of daily living, when compared with those participants who received either robot-assisted training or usual care. Participants who received enhanced upper limb therapy also experienced benefits in their mobility, compared with usual care participants. Participants and therapists found both therapies acceptable, and described various benefits. A health economic analysis found that neither robot-assisted training nor the enhanced upper limb therapy programme was a cost-effective treatment for the NHS.

A pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial of two behaviour change interventions compared to usual care to reduce substance misuse in looked after children and care leavers aged 12-20 years: The SOLID study.

BACKGROUND: Young people in state care, often due to abuse or neglect, have a four-fold increased risk of drug and alcohol use compared to their peers. AIM: The SOLID study aimed to investigate the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial, comparing two behaviour change interventions to reduce risky substance use (illicit drugs and alcohol), and improve mental health, in young people in care. METHODS: We recruited young people in care aged 12-20 years, self-reporting substance use within the previous 12 months and residing in 1 of 6 participating local authority sites in the North East of England. Participants were randomised to either i. Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), ii. Social Behaviour and Network Therapy (SBNT) or iii. Control (usual care). All interventions were delivered by trained drug and alcohol workers. Follow-up data were collected 12 months post recruitment. Feasibility for trial progression was compared to pre-specified stop: go criteria (recruitment of 60% of eligible participants, 80% of participants attending 60% of offered sessions and retention of 70% of participants at 12 month follow up). RESULTS: Of 1450 eligible participants, 860 (59%) were screened for drug and alcohol use by social workers, 211 (24.5%) met inclusion criteria for the trial and 112 young people (7.7%) consented and were randomised. Sixty of these 112 participants (54%) completed 12-month follow-up questionnaires. Only 15 out of the 76 (20%) participants allocated to an intervention arm attended any of the offered MET or SBNT sessions. CONCLUSION: By reference to pre-specified stop: go criteria it is not feasible to conduct a definitive trial for SOLID in its current format. Despite co-designing procedures with staff and young people in care, the screening, referral and treatment pathway did not work here. Future work may require dedicated clinically embedded research resource to evaluate effectiveness of new interventions in services.

An extended stroke rehabilitation service for people who have had a stroke: the EXTRAS RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS). DESIGN: A pragmatic, observer-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive EXTRAS or usual care. SETTING: Nineteen NHS study centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers. INTERVENTIONS: Five EXTRAS reviews provided by an early supported discharge team member between 1 and 18 months post early supported discharge, usually over the telephone. Reviewers assessed rehabilitation needs, with goal-setting and action-planning. Control treatment was usual care post early supported discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale) at 24 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 12 and 24 months included patient mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), health status (Oxford Handicap Scale), experience of services and adverse events. For carers, secondary outcomes included carers' strain (Caregiver Strain Index) and experience of services. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilisation costs (adaptation of the Client Service Receipt Inventory) and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS, n = 285; usual care, n = 288) with 194 carers (EXTRAS, n = 103; usual care, n = 91) were randomised. Mean 24-month Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were 40.0 (standard deviation 18.1) for EXTRAS (n = 219) and 37.2 (standard deviation 18.5) for usual care (n = 231), giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% confidence interval -0.7 to 4.2). The mean intervention group Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. The intervention did not improve patient health status or carer strain. EXTRAS patients and carers reported greater satisfaction with some aspects of care. The mean cost of resource utilisation was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (95% confidence interval -£3292 to £2787), with a 68% chance of EXTRAS being cost-saving. EXTRAS was associated with 0.07 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12) additional quality-adjusted life-years. At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year, there is a 90% chance that EXTRAS is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living but did improve their overall satisfaction with services. Given the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life-years, there is a high chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to identify whether or not community-based interventions can improve performance of extended activities of daily living, and to understand the improvements in health-related quality of life and costs seen by provision of intermittent longer-term specialist review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373. 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. 24, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Early supported discharge enables stroke patients with mild or moderate disability to be discharged earlier than usual from hospital to continue rehabilitation at home. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that early supported discharge leads to increased independence for stroke survivors, and that early supported discharge is cost-effective. Early supported discharge is usually provided for up to 6 weeks and patients with ongoing physical, psychological or social needs are then referred to other services. In the UK, provision of longer-term rehabilitation is often limited. Lack of research evidence has meant that service development in this aspect of stroke care has lagged behind service development for acute care. This clinical trial evaluated an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) that started when early supported discharge ended. Stroke survivors and their carers were randomly assigned to receive EXTRAS or usual NHS care. EXTRAS involved five rehabilitation reviews conducted over 18 months by an early supported discharge team member, usually over the telephone. Each review consisted of an assessment of current needs, goal-setting and action-planning, and sought to improve patients' abilities and confidence to undertake extended activities of daily living (mobility, kitchen and domestic tasks, and leisure activities). There were no specific assessments or actions for carers but it was important to evaluate the impact that the new service had on carers. Patients and carers were followed up for 2 years and information was collected about their activities, mood, quality of life and services received. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living. However, patients who received EXTRAS reported less anxiety and less depression than those who received usual care, and patients and carers were more satisfied with some aspects of their care. EXTRAS did not improve carers' quality of life or stress. Health economic analyses suggest that EXTRAS improved patients' quality of life and may be good value for money. Further research is needed to identify other treatments to address the longer-term consequences of stroke.

Preoperative behavioural intervention to reduce drinking before elective orthopaedic surgery: the PRE-OP BIRDS feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and extended hospital stay. Alcohol consumption therefore represents a modifiable risk factor for surgical outcomes. Brief behavioural interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among increased risk and risky drinkers in other health-care settings and may offer a method of addressing preoperative alcohol consumption. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of introducing a screening process to assess adult preoperative drinking levels and to deliver a brief behavioural intervention adapted for the target population group. To conduct a two-arm (brief behavioural intervention plus standard preoperative care vs. standard preoperative care alone), multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial. To conduct focus groups and a national web-based survey to establish current treatment as usual for alcohol screening and intervention in preoperative assessment. DESIGN: A single-centre, qualitative, feasibility study was followed by a multicentre, two-arm (brief behavioural intervention vs. treatment as usual), individually randomised controlled pilot trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. Focus groups and a quantitative survey were employed to characterise treatment as usual in preoperative assessment. SETTING: The feasibility study took place at a secondary care hospital in the north-east of England. The pilot trial was conducted at three large secondary care centres in the north-east of England. PARTICIPANTS: Nine health-care professionals and 15 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 86.7% male) participated in the feasibility study. Eleven health-care professionals and 68 patients (mean age 66.2 years, 80.9% male) participated in the pilot randomised trial. An additional 19 health-care professionals were recruited to one of three focus groups, while 62 completed an electronic survey to characterise treatment as usual. INTERVENTIONS: The brief behavioural intervention comprised two sessions. The first session, delivered face to face in the preoperative assessment clinic, involved 5 minutes of structured brief advice followed by 15-20 minutes of behaviour change counselling, including goal-setting, problem-solving and identifying sources of social support. The second session, an optional booster, took place approximately 1 week before surgery and offered the opportunity to assess progress and boost self-efficacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed using rates of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The progression criteria for a definitive trial were recruitment of ≥ 40% of eligible patients and retention of ≥ 70% at 6-month follow-up. Acceptability was assessed using themes identified in qualitative data. RESULTS: The initial recruitment of eligible patients was low but improved with the optimisation of recruitment processes. The recruitment of eligible participants to the pilot trial (34%) fell short of the progression criteria but was mitigated by very high retention (96%) at the 6-month follow-up. Multimethod analyses identified the methods as acceptable to the patients and professionals involved and offers recommendations of ways to further improve recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention in reducing preoperative alcohol consumption and for secondary outcomes of surgical complications if recommendations for further improvements are adopted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36257982. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 12. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Most patients undergoing knee and hip replacements are over 65 years old. Older patients have an increased risk of complications following surgery. Heavy alcohol consumption in the weeks before surgery increases the risk of complications after surgery, which can extend recovery times. Advice that helps patients reduce their alcohol consumption before surgery may have benefits for recovery. The PRE-OP BIRDS study had two parts: a feasibility study followed by a pilot randomised controlled trial with focus groups and an electronic survey used to characterise usual care in the preoperative assessment clinic. The feasibility study took place at one hospital. It aimed to develop materials that help health-care professionals provide brief advice to patients on how to reduce alcohol consumption before surgery. This brief advice was delivered to eligible patients and the acceptability to staff and patients was assessed in interviews. The pilot trial took place in three hospitals. Patients who agreed to take part were placed, by equal chance, into either a group that received usual care or a group that received usual care plus brief advice about reducing alcohol use. The aim was to count how many people agreed to take part and how many also agreed to complete a follow-up 6 months later. Interviews were carried out with patients and staff to explore their views on the intervention and the trial as a whole. All of this information was collected to help decide if a future larger trial was possible. This work found that the tools used were acceptable to both patients and staff. Although the number of people who agreed to take part was smaller than hoped, almost all of those who took part also completed the 6-month follow-up. Therefore, a future larger trial was found to be possible, but some changes could be made to encourage more people to take part.

Nasal Airway Obstruction Study (NAIROS): a phase III, open-label, mixed-methods, multicentre randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management of a septal deviation with nasal obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Septoplasty (surgery to straighten a deviation in the nasal septum) is a frequently performed operation worldwide, with approximately 250,000 performed annually in the US and 22,000 in the UK. Most septoplasties aim to improve diurnal and nocturnal nasal obstruction. The evidence base for septoplasty clinical effectiveness is hitherto very limited. AIMS: To establish, and inform guidance for, the best management strategy for individuals with nasal obstruction associated with a deviated septum. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre, mixed-methods, open label, randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and a reduced nasal airway. Eligible patients will have septal deflection visible at nasendoscopy and a nasal symptom score ≥ 30 on the NOSE questionnaire. Surgical treatment comprises septoplasty with or without reduction of the inferior nasal turbinate on the anatomically wider side of the nose. Medical management comprises a nasal saline spray followed by a fluorinated steroid spray daily for six months. The recruitment target is 378 patients, recruited from up to 17 sites across Scotland, England and Wales. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by gender and severity (NOSE score). Participants will be followed up for 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the total SNOT-22 score at 6 months. Clinical and economic outcomes will be modelled against baseline severity (NOSE scale) to inform clinical decision-making. The study includes a recruitment enhancement process, and an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The NAIROS trial will evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and symptoms of nasal blockage. Identifying those individuals most likely to benefit from surgery should enable more efficient and effective clinical decision-making, and avoid unnecessary operations where there is low likelihood of patient benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2017-000893-12, ISRCTN: 16168569. Registered on 24 March 2017.

Prostate cancer androgen receptor splice variant 7 biomarker study - a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of biomarker-guided personalised treatment in patients with advanced prostate cancer (the VARIANT trial) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer with one in four developing non-curable metastatic disease. Initial treatment responses to hormonal therapies are transient and further management options lie between (1) further hormone therapy or (2) a non-hormonal approach involving additional chemotherapy or molecular radiotherapy (radium-223). There is no clear rationale for choosing between these mechanistically different treatment approaches. The biology of hormone resistance is driven through abnormal androgen receptor activity and we can assay this through a blood test measuring androgen receptor variant 7 (AR-V7) expression in circulating tumour cells. Despite increasing evidence supporting AR-V7's role as a prognostic marker, the clinical utility of such measures remains unknown in helping personalise treatment decisions. METHODS AND DESIGN: The VARIANT feasibility trial is a pragmatic design, to be run over 18 months with participants randomised into the intervention arm receiving biomarker (AR-V7) guided clinical treatment and participants randomised into the control arm with conventional standard management (no biomarker guidance). AR-V7 positive participants (likely to be insensitive to further hormone treatment) will receive chemotherapy or in other cases radium-223 (where routinely available). Seventy male ≥18 years old participants with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer clinically indicated to proceed to further hormone therapy or chemotherapy, will be recruited from three National Health Service Trusts based in England, Scotland and Wales. The feasibility primary outcome is willingness of patients to be randomised and clinicians to recruit to a biomarker-based treatment strategy, with trial data informing the basis of a definitive and appropriately powered randomised control trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics review was undertaken with a favourable opinion, through Wales NRES Committee 2 18/WA/0419. Findings to be disseminated through patient and professional organisations that have expressed their support, media outlets and peer-reviewed journal publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10246848; pre-results.

An intervention to improve outcomes of falls in dementia: the DIFRID mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Fall-related injuries are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in people with dementia. There is presently little evidence to guide the management of such injuries, and yet there are potentially substantial benefits to be gained if the outcomes of these injuries could be improved. This study aimed to design an appropriate new health-care intervention for people with dementia following a fall and to assess the feasibility of its delivery in the UK NHS. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not it is possible to design an intervention to improve outcomes of falls in dementia, to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the DIFRID (Developing an Intervention for Fall related Injuries in Dementia) intervention and to investigate the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial and the data collection tools needed to evaluate both the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the DIFRID intervention. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods feasibility study. A systematic review (using Cochrane methodology) and realist review [using Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) methodology] explored the existing evidence base and developed programme theories. Searches were carried out in November 2015 (updated in January 2018) for effectiveness studies and in August 2016 for economic studies. A prospective observational study identified service use via participant diary completion. Qualitative methods (semistructured interviews, focus groups and observation) were used to explore current practice, stakeholder perspectives of the health and social care needs of people with dementia following a fall, ideas for intervention and barriers to and facilitators of change. Each of the resulting data sets informed intervention development via Delphi consensus methods. Finally, a single-arm feasibility study with embedded process evaluation was conducted. SETTING: This study was set in the community. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were (1) people with dementia presenting with falls necessitating health-care attention in each setting (primary care, the community and secondary care) at three sites and their carers, (2) professionals delivering the intervention, who were responsible for training and supervision and who were members of the intervention team, (3) professionals responsible for approaching and recruiting participants and (4) carers of participants with dementia. INTERVENTIONS: This was a complex multidisciplinary therapy intervention. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists and support workers delivered up to 22 sessions of tailored activities in the home or local area of the person with dementia over a period of 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Assessment of feasibility of study procedures; (2) assessment of the acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components; and (3) assessment of the suitability and acceptability of outcome measures for people with dementia and their carers (number of falls, quality of life, fear of falling, activities of daily living, goal-setting, health-care utilisation and carer burden). RESULTS: A multidisciplinary intervention delivered in the homes of people with dementia was designed based on qualitative work, realist review and recommendations of the consensus panel. The intervention was delivered to 11 people with dementia. The study suggested that the intervention is both feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. A number of modifications were recommended to address some of the issues arising during feasibility testing. The measurement of outcome measures was successful. CONCLUSIONS: The study has highlighted the feasibility of delivering a creative, tailored, individual approach to intervention for people with dementia following a fall. Although the intervention required greater investment of time than usual practice, many staff valued the opportunity to work more closely with people with dementia and their carers. We conclude that further research is now needed to refine this intervention in the context of a pilot randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41760734 and PROSPERO CRD42016029565. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with dementia fall over more often than people who do not have dementia. When they fall over, they are more likely to hurt themselves. They do not get better as easily as people without dementia. After hurting themselves, people with dementia may need a lot more help in looking after themselves. They, and their carer, may not have such a good quality of life after the fall. In this study, we developed and tested a package of care to help people with dementia recover from a fall. In the first part of the study, we looked for papers about clinical trials that have tried to make things better for people with dementia who have had a fall. We found that there were very few previous clinical trials, but we found ideas for ways in which this could be improved. In the second part of the study, we found out what happens to people with dementia who ask for help after an injury due to a fall. We found that very few services were used by people with dementia who fall. We interviewed them and their carers to find out what help they thought they needed after the fall and what they thought we could do better. We also spoke to the staff in existing services to find out how they thought services for people with dementia could be improved. In the third part of the study, we asked a group of experts, people with dementia and their carers to look at the findings of the first two parts of the study. They helped us to design a care package for people with dementia after a fall. In the fourth part of the study, we practised giving the new care package to 11 people with dementia in their own homes. This was very successful and we now recommend that the package is tested further in randomised controlled clinical trials.

Evaluation of an Extended Stroke Rehabilitation Service (EXTRAS): A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Analysis.

Background and Purpose- There is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation to meet the longer term needs of stroke survivors. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) provided following early supported discharge were determined. Methods- EXTRAS was a pragmatic parallel-group observer-blind randomized controlled trial involving 19 UK centers. Patients with stroke were individually randomized to receive EXTRAS or usual care at discharge from early supported discharge. Five EXTRAS reviews were provided by an early supported discharge team member between one and 18 months, usually by telephone. Reviews consisted of a semi-structured interview assessing progress, rehabilitation needs, and service provision, with goal setting and action planning. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham EADL Scale) at 24 months post-randomization. The Nottingham EADL Scale is scored 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance in these activities. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilization costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years. Analyses were intention to treat. Results- Between January 9, 2013 and October 26, 2015, 573 participants were randomized (EXTRAS, n=285; usual care, n=288). Mean 24 month Nottingham EADL Scale scores were EXTRAS (n=219) 40.0 (SD 18.1) and usual care (n=231) 37.2 (SD 18.5) giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI, -0.7 to 4.2). 1155/1338 (86%) of expected EXTRAS reviews were undertaken. Over 24 months, the mean cost of resource utilization was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (-$450 [95% CI, -£3292 to £2787; -$4764 to $4033]). EXTRAS provided more Quality Adjusted Life Years (0.07 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]). At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay (£20 000 [$28 940] per Quality Adjusted Life Years), there was a 90% chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Conclusions- EXTRAS did not significantly improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living. However, given the impact on costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years, EXTRAS may be an affordable addition to improve stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN45203373.

Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care. METHODS: RATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70-1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90-2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48-1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Robot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Understanding frames: A qualitative exploration of standing frame use for young people with cerebral palsy in educational settings.

BACKGROUND: Consensus opinion supports standing frame use as part of postural management for nonambulant young people with cerebral palsy. Most young people with cerebral palsy in the United Kingdom, who use standing frames, use them at nursery or school, rather than at home. In this paper we report professionals' and parents' experiences and views of standing frame use specifically in educational settings. This research was conducted as part of a large mixed methods study to determine the acceptability and inform the design of a future trial of standing frames. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used: focus groups with educational professionals, parents and clinicians (paediatricians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) were convened. Data were analysed thematically using framework analysis. RESULTS: Five focus groups were conducted. The overarching theme "flexibility" encompassed four subordinate themes: (i) "balancing education and therapy," which described the way education professionals had to juggle different priorities from health professionals within a multi-disciplinary team; (ii) "young people's autonomy," which highlighted participants' belief that standing frame use should be centred on the individual young person and their needs; (iii) "working within logistical boundaries," which demonstrated that "ideal" standing frame use was not always possible due to logistical issues (e.g., staffing and standing frame availability); and (iv) "competence and confidence," which highlighted that educational professionals felt that they lacked the training to confidently position young people in their standing frame. CONCLUSIONS: This paper highlights the complexity of standing frame use in the educational setting. If a standing frame programme is prescribed to be delivered in an educational setting, strong multidisciplinary and interagency communication is essential to balance therapy versus education. Training is required to ensure staff are competent in using the standing frame with the young person understanding their individual requirements. A flexible approach-inclusive of the young person's needs, logistical demands and resource-is necessary.

Developing an Intervention for Fall-Related Injuries in Dementia (DIFRID): an integrated, mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Falls in people with dementia can result in a number of physical and psychosocial consequences. However, there is limited evidence to inform how best to deliver services to people with dementia following a fall. The aim of the DIFRID study was to determine the feasibility of developing and implementing a new intervention to improve outcomes for people with dementia with fall-related injuries; this encompasses both short-term recovery and reducing the likelihood of future falls. This paper details the development of the DIFRID intervention. METHODS: The intervention was designed using an integrated, mixed-methods approach. This involved a realist synthesis of the literature and qualitative data gathered through interviews and focus groups with health and social care professionals (n = 81). An effectiveness review and further interviews and observation were also conducted and are reported elsewhere. A modified Delphi panel approach with 24 experts was then used to establish a consensus on how the findings should translate into a new intervention. After feedback from key stakeholders (n = 15) on the proposed model, the intervention was manualised and training developed. RESULTS: We identified key components of a new intervention covering three broad areas: • Ensuring that the circumstances of rehabilitation are optimised for people with dementia • Compensating for the reduced ability of people with dementia to self-manage • Equipping the workforce with the necessary skills and information to care for this patient group Consensus was achieved on 54 of 69 statements over two rounds of the Delphi surveys. The statements were used to model the intervention and finalise the accompanying manual and protocol for a feasibility study. Stakeholder feedback was generally positive and the majority of suggested intervention components were approved. The proposed outcome was a 12-week complex multidisciplinary intervention primarily based at the patient's home. CONCLUSIONS: A new intervention has been developed to improve outcomes for people with dementia following a fall requiring healthcare attention. The feasibility of this intervention is currently being tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN41760734 (16/11/2015).

Adjuvant rituximab, a potential treatment for the young patient with Graves' hyperthyroidism (RiGD): study protocol for a single-arm, single-stage, phase II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Graves' disease (Graves' hyperthyroidism) is a challenging condition for the young person and their family. The excess thyroid hormone generated by autoimmune stimulation of the thyroid stimulating hormone receptor on the thyroid gland can have a profound impact on well-being. Managing the young person with Graves' hyperthyroidism is more difficult than in older people because the side effects of conventional treatment are more significant in this age group and because the disease tends not to resolve spontaneously in the short to medium term. New immunomodulatory agents are available and the anti-B cell monoclonal antibody rituximab is of particular interest because it targets cells that manufacture the antibodies that stimulate the thyroid gland in Graves'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial aims to establish whether the combination of a single dose of rituximab (500 mg) and a 12-month course of antithyroid drug (usually carbimazole) can result in a meaningful increase in the proportion of patients in remission at 2 years, the primary endpoint. A single-stage, phase II A'Hern design is used. 27 patients aged 12-20 years with newly presenting Graves' hyperthyroidism will be recruited. Markers of immune function, including lymphocyte numbers and antibody levels (total and specific), will be collected regularly throughout the trial. DISCUSSION: The trial will determine whether the immunomodulatory medication, rituximab, will facilitate remission above and beyond that observed with antithyroid drug alone. A meaningful increase in the expected proportion of young patients entering remission when managed according to the trial protocol will justify consideration of a phase III trial.Ethics and dissemination The trial has received a favourable ethical opinion (North East - Tyne and Wear South Research Ethics Committee, reference 16/NE/0253, EudraCT number 2016-000209-35). The results of this trial will be distributed at international endocrine meetings, in the peer-reviewed literature and via patient support groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20381716.

Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and process evaluations in the North East of England.

BACKGROUND: There are major socio-economic gradients in health that could be influenced by increasing personal resources. Welfare rights advice can enhance resources but has not been rigorously evaluated for health-related impacts. METHODS: Randomised, wait-list controlled trial with individual allocation, stratified by general practice, of welfare rights advice and assistance with benefit entitlements, delivered in participants' homes by trained advisors. Control was usual care. Participants were volunteers sampled from among all those aged ≥60 years registered with general practices in socio-economically deprived areas of north east England. Outcomes at 24 months were: CASP-19 score (primary), a measure of health-related quality of life; changes in income, social and physical function, and cost-effectiveness (secondary). Intention to treat analysis compared outcomes using multiple regression, with adjustment for stratification and key covariates. Qualitative interviews with purposive samples from both trial arms were thematically analysed. FINDINGS: Of 3912 individuals approached, 755 consented and were randomised (381 Intervention, 374 Control). Results refer to outcomes at 24 months, with data available on 562 (74.4%) participants. Intervention was received as intended by 335 (88%), with 84 (22%) awarded additional benefit entitlements; 46 did not receive any welfare rights advice, and none of these were awarded additional benefits. Mean CASP-19 scores were 42.9 (Intervention) and 42.4 (Control) (adjusted mean difference 0.3 [95%CI -0.8, 1.5]). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes except Intervention participants reported receiving more care at home at 24m (53.7 (Intervention) vs 42.0 (Control) hours/week (adjusted mean difference 26.3 [95%CIs 0.8, 56.1]). Exploratory analyses did not support an intervention effect and economic evaluation suggested the intervention was unlikely to be cost-effective. Qualitative data from 50 interviews suggested there were improvements in quality of life among those receiving additional benefits. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effects on health outcomes; fewer participants than anticipated received additional benefit entitlements, and participants were more affluent than expected. Our findings do not support delivery of domiciliary welfare rights advice to achieve the health outcomes assessed in this population. However, better intervention targeting may reveal worthwhile health impacts.

Rituximab Is Ineffective for Treatment of Fatigue in Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial.

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease. Half of patients experience debilitating fatigue, which is currently untreatable. Previous studies have shown muscle bioenergetic abnormalities in PBC, including increased muscle acidosis with exercise linked to the antimitochondrial antibody (AMA) diagnostic of the disease, and reduced anaerobic threshold. In this study we addressed the hypothesis that fatigue in PBC is driven by muscle bioenergetic abnormality related to AMA, and that AMA reduction with B-cell depletion therapy will improve fatigue. In our single-center phase 2 randomized controlled trial, 57 participants aged 18 years or older with PBC and moderate to severe fatigue were randomized to receive two doses of either rituximab (1000 mg) or saline (placebo). The primary outcome measure was fatigue severity assessed using the PBC-40 fatigue domain at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included patient-reported outcomes and immunological and bioenergetics disease parameters. Experimental outcomes included biochemical markers of disease severity. Improvement in fatigue score at 3 months was seen in both arms, with no significant difference (adjusted mean difference -0.9 [95% confidence interval -4.6 to 3.1]). Little difference was observed in other patient-reported outcomes or physical activity. Significant anaerobic threshold improvement was seen in the rituximab group, only but this was not associated with fatigue improvement. No treatment-emergent serious adverse events were seen. Conclusions: Rituximab was safe over the 12-month study period but showed no evidence of effectiveness for the treatment of fatigue in PBC. Anaerobic threshold improvement was seen, potentially linking AMA with muscle bioenergetics dysfunction; however, this was not related to improvement in fatigue. Rituximab had some evidence of a beneficial effect on alkaline phosphatase levels in this largely ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-responding, early-disease stage cohort. (Hepatology 2018; 00:000-000).

Feasibility of trial procedures for a randomised controlled trial of a community based group exercise intervention for falls prevention for visually impaired older people: the VIOLET study.

BACKGROUND: Visually impaired older people (VIOP) have a higher risk of falling than their sighted peers, and are likely to avoid physical activity. The aim was to adapt the existing Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme for VIOP, delivered in the community, and to investigate the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of this adapted intervention. METHODS: Two-centre randomised mixed methods pilot trial and economic evaluation of the adapted group-based FaME programme for VIOP versus usual care. A one hour exercise programme ran weekly over 12 weeks at the study sites (Newcastle and Glasgow), delivered by third sector (voluntary and community) organisations. Participants were advised to exercise at home for an additional two hours over the week. Those randomised to the usual activities group received no intervention. Outcome measures were completed at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks. The potential primary outcome was the Short Form Falls Efficacy Scale - International (SFES-I). Participants' adherence was assessed by reviewing attendance records and self-reported compliance to the home exercises. Adherence with the course content (fidelity) by instructors was assessed by a researcher. Adverse events were collected in a weekly phone call. RESULTS: Eighteen participants, drawn from community-living VIOP were screened; 68 met the inclusion criteria; 64 participants were randomised with 33 allocated to the intervention and 31 to the usual activities arm. 94% of participants provided data at the 12 week visit and 92% at 24 weeks. Adherence was high. The intervention was found to be safe with 76% attending nine or more classes. Median time for home exercise was 50 min per week. There was little or no evidence that fear of falling, balance and falls risk, physical activity, emotional, attitudinal or quality of life outcomes differed between trial arms at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention, FaME, was implemented successfully for VIOP and all progression criteria for a main trial were met. The lack of difference between groups on fear of falling was unsurprising given it was a pilot study but there may have been other contributory factors including suboptimal exercise dose and apparent low risk of falls in participants. These issues need addressing for a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN ID: 16949845 Registered: 21 May 2015.

Is it feasible to deliver a complex intervention to improve the outcome of falls in people with dementia? A protocol for the DIFRID feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia (PWD) experience ten times as many incident falls as people without dementia. Little is known about how best to deliver services to people with dementia following a fall. We used an integrated, mixed-methods approach to develop a new intervention which combines theory generated via a realist synthesis and data on current provision and pathways, gathered through a prospective observational study as well as qualitative interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation. This intervention is to be tested in a feasibility study in the UK National Health Service. METHODS: People living with dementia in one of three geographical areas will be eligible for the study if they experience a fall requiring healthcare attention and have an informal carer. Potential participants will be identified by community services (primary care, paramedics, telecare), secondary care (ED, facilitated discharge services, rehabilitation outreach teams) and research case registers. Participants will receive a complex multidisciplinary intervention focused on their goals and interests for up to 12 weeks. The intervention will be delivered by occupational therapists, physiotherapists and rehabilitation support workers. Feasibility outcomes will include recruitment and retention, suitability and acceptability of outcome measures and acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components. PWD outcome measures will include number of falls, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), European Quality of Life Instrument (EQ-5D-5L), Quality of Life-Alzheimer's Disease Scale (QOL-AD), Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). PWD outcome measures completed by an informal carer will include Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD), EQ-5D-5L Proxy, QoL-AD Proxy and a Health Utilisation Questionnaire (HUQ). The carer outcome measure will be the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). An embedded process evaluation will explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment and intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: The study results will inform whether and how a larger multicentre RCT should be undertaken. A full RCT would have the potential to show how outcomes can be improved for people with dementia who have fallen. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The National Research Ethics Service Committee Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 approved the feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry. Registration number: ISRCTN41760734. Date of registration: 16/11/2015.