The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to invest in care home research infrastructure.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in catastrophic levels of morbidity and mortality for care home residents. Despite this, research platforms for COVID-19 in care homes arrived late in the pandemic compared with other care settings. The Prophylactic Therapy in Care Homes Trial (PROTECT-CH) was established to provide a platform to deliver multi-centre cluster-randomized clinical trials of investigational medicinal products for COVID-19 prophylaxis in UK care homes. Commencing set-up in January 2021, this involved the design and development of novel infrastructure for contracting and recruitment, remote consent, staff training, research insurance, eligibility screening, prescribing, dispensing and adverse event reporting; such infrastructure being previously absent. By the time this infrastructure was in place, the widespread uptake of vaccination in care homes had changed the epidemiology of COVID-19 rendering the trial unfeasible. While some of the resources developed through PROTECT-CH will enable the future establishment of care home platform research, the near absence of care home trial infrastructure and nationally linked databases involving the care home sector will continue to significantly hamper progress. These issues are replicated in most other countries. Beyond COVID-19, there are many other research questions that require addressing to provide better care to people living in care homes. PROTECT-CH has exposed a clear need for research funders to invest in, and legislate for, an effective care home research infrastructure as part of national pandemic preparedness planning. Doing so would also invigorate care home research in the interim, leading to improved healthcare delivery specific to those living in this sector.

Long-term Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment With Catechol-O-Methyltransferase or Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors Compared With Dopamine Agonists Among Patients With Parkinson Disease Uncontrolled by Levodopa Therapy: The PD MED Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many people with Parkinson disease (PD) develop motor complications that are uncontrolled by levodopa dose adjustment. Among these patients, it is uncertain which drug class is more effective as adjuvant therapy. Objective: To compare the long-term effects on patient-rated quality of life of adding a dopamine agonist vs a dopamine reuptake inhibitor (DRI), either a monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) inhibitor or a catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor, to levodopa therapy for the treatment of patients with motor complications of PD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic semifactorial (2 × 1) randomized clinical trial recruited from 64 neurology and geriatric clinics (62 in the United Kingdom, 1 in the Czech Republic, and 1 in Russia) between February 23, 2001, and December 15, 2009. A total of 500 patients with idiopathic PD who developed uncontrolled motor complications and did not have dementia were randomly assigned on a 1:1:1 basis using a computerized minimization program. Data were analyzed between 2017 and 2020. Interventions: Open-label dopamine agonist, MAO-B inhibitor, or COMT inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were scores on the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) mobility domain and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were assessed before study entry, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Repeated-measures and log rank analyses were used in an intention-to-treat approach. Results: Among 500 participants, the mean (SD) age was 73.0 (8.2) years; 314 participants (62.8%) were men. Over a median of 4.5 years (range, 0-13.3 years) of follow-up, the participants in the dopamine agonist group had a mean PDQ-39 mobility score that was 2.4 points (95% CI, -1.3 to 6.0 points) better than that of the combined MAO-B and COMT groups; however, this difference was not significant (P=.20). With regard to DRIs, participants in the MAO-B group had mean PDQ-39 mobility scores that were 4.2 points (95% CI, 0.4-7.9 points; P=.03) better than those of the COMT group and EuroQol 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) utility scores that were 0.05 points (95% CI, 0.003-0.09 points; P=.04) better than the COMT group. Nonsignificant improvements were found in the PDQ-39 summary index (mean difference, 2.2 points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 4.5 points; P=.07) along with nonsignificant reductions in dementia (rate ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.03; P = .07) and mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03; P=.07). When dopamine agonists were compared with MAO-B inhibitors only, the outcomes were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patient-rated quality of life was inferior when COMT inhibitors were used as adjuvant treatment compared with MAO-B inhibitors or dopamine agonists among people with PD who experienced motor complications that were uncontrolled by levodopa therapy. The MAO-B inhibitors produced equivalent disease control, suggesting that these agents may be underused as adjuvant therapy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN69812316; EU Clinical Trials Register Identifier: 2005-001813-16.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial compared Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT® LOUD) with standard NHS speech and language therapy (SLT) and a control arm in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with self-reported problems with voice or speech. This analysis compares costs and quality of life outcomes between the trial arms, and considers the validity of the alternative outcome measures for economic evaluations. METHODS: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside the PD COMM pilot trial involving three arms: LSVT® LOUD treatment (n = 30); standard NHS SLT (n = 30); and a control arm (n = 29) excluded from receiving therapy for at least 6 months after randomisation unless deemed medically necessary. For all trial arms, resource use and NHS, social care and patient costs and quality of life were collected prospectively at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Total economic costs and outcomes (EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O) were considered over the 12-month follow-up period from an NHS payer perspective. Quality of life measures for economic evaluation of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease were compared. RESULTS: Whilst there was no difference between arms in voice or quality of life outcomes at 12 months, there were indications of differences at 3 months in favour of SLT, which need to be confirmed in the main trial. The estimated mean cost of NHS care was £3288 per patient per year for the LSVT® LOUD arm, £2033 for NHS SLT, and £1788 for the control arm. EQ-5D-3L was more strongly correlated to voice impairment than ICECAP-O, and was sensitive to differences in voice impairment between arms. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot did not identify an effect of SLT on disease-specific or economic outcomes for PwPD at 12 months; however, there appeared to be improvements at 3 months. In addition to the sample size not powered to detect difference in cost-consequence analysis, many patients in the control arm started SLT during the 12-month period used for economic analysis, in line with the study protocol. The LSVT® LOUD intervention was more intense and therefore more costly. Early indications suggest that the preferred economic outcome measure for the full trial is EQ-5D-3L; however, the ICECAP-O should still be included to capture a broader measure of wellbeing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. Registered 22 March 2012.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dopamine Agonists and Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors in Early Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD MED study reported small but persistent benefits in patient-rated mobility scores and quality of life from initiating therapy with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapies in early Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors compared with levodopa alone. METHODS: PD MED is a pragmatic, open-label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors ) and levodopa alone. Mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs were calculated for each participant. Differences in mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs between levodopa and levodopa-sparing therapies and between dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.30; P < 0.01) and lower mean costs (£3390; £2671-£4109; P < 0.01) than levodopa-sparing therapies, the difference in costs driven by the higher costs of levodopa-sparing therapies. There were no significant differences in the costs of inpatient, social care, and institutional care between arms. There was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between those allocated dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (0.02; -0.17 to 0.13 in favor of dopamine agonists; P = 0.81); however costs were significantly lower for those allocated monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (£2321; £1628-£3015; P < 0.01) because of the higher costs of dopamine agonists. There were no significant differences between arms for other costs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with levodopa is highly cost-effective compared with levodopa-sparing therapies. Monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was more cost-effective, with similar quality-adjusted life-years but lower costs than dopamine agonists. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery vs Community Weight Management Intervention for the Treatment of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) causes headaches, vision loss, and reduced quality of life. Sustained weight loss among patients with IIH is necessary to modify the disease and prevent relapse. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of bariatric surgery with that of a community weight management (CWM) intervention for the treatment of patients with active IIH. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 5-year randomized clinical trial (Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Weight Trial) enrolled women with active IIH and a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 35 or higher at 5 National Health Service hospitals in the UK between March 1, 2014, and May 25, 2017. Of 74 women assessed for eligibility, 6 did not meet study criteria and 2 declined to participate; 66 women were randomized. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2018, to May 14, 2020. Interventions: Bariatric surgery (n = 33) or CWM intervention (Weight Watchers) (n = 33). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in intracranial pressure measured by lumbar puncture opening pressure at 12 months, as assessed in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included lumbar puncture opening pressure at 24 months as well as visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, perimetric mean deviation, and quality of life (measured by the 36-item Short Form Health Survey) at 12 and 24 months. Because the difference in continuous outcomes between groups is presented, the null effect was at 0. Results: Of the 66 female participants (mean [SD] age, 32.0 [7.8] years), 64 (97.0%) remained in the clinical trial at 12 months and 54 women (81.8%) were included in the primary outcome analysis. Intracranial pressure was significantly lower in the bariatric surgery arm at 12 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, -6.0 [1.8] cm cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]; 95% CI, -9.5 to -2.4 cm CSF; P = .001) and at 24 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, -8.2 [2.0] cm CSF; 95% CI, -12.2 to -4.2 cm CSF; P < .001) compared with the CWM arm. In the per protocol analysis, intracranial pressure was significantly lower in the bariatric surgery arm at 12 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, -7.2 [1.8] cm CSF; 95% CI, -10.6 to -3.7 cm CSF; P < .001) and at 24 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, -8.7 [2.0] cm CSF; 95% CI, -12.7 to -4.8 cm CSF; P < .001). Weight was significantly lower in the bariatric surgery arm at 12 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, -21.4 [5.4] kg; 95% CI, -32.1 to -10.7 kg; P < .001) and at 24 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, -26.6 [5.6] kg; 95% CI, -37.5 to -15.7 kg; P < .001). Quality of life was significantly improved at 12 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, 7.3 [3.6]; 95% CI, 0.2-14.4; P = .04) and 24 months (adjusted mean [SE] difference, 10.4 [3.8]; 95% CI, 3.0-17.9; P = .006) in the bariatric surgery arm. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, bariatric surgery was superior to a CWM intervention in lowering intracranial pressure. The continued improvement over the course of 2 years shows the impact of this intervention with regard to sustained disease remission. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02124486.

Test evaluation trials present different challenges for trial managers compared to intervention trials.

INTRODUCTION: Test evaluation trials present different challenges for trial managers compared to intervention trials. There has been very little research on the management of test evaluation trials and how this impacts on trial success, in comparison with intervention trials. Evaluations of medical tests present specific challenges, because they are a pivot point bridging the complexities of pathways prompting testing with treatment decision-making. We systematically explored key differences in the trial design and management of test evaluation trials compared to intervention trials at the different stages of study design and delivery. We identified challenges in test evaluation trials that were more pronounced than in intervention trials, based on experience from 10 test evaluation trials. METHODS: We formed a focus group of 7 trial managers and a statistician who had been involved in the day-to-day management of both test evaluation trials and intervention trials. We used discussion and content analysis to group challenges from 10 trials into a structured thematic format. The trials covered a range of medical conditions, diagnostic tests, clinical pathways and conditions including chronic kidney disease, chronic pelvic pain, colitis, detrusor over-activity, group B streptococcal colonisation, tuberculosis and colorectal, lung, ovarian and thyroid cancers. RESULTS: We identified 10 common themes underlying challenges that are more pronounced in test evaluation compared to intervention trials. We illustrate these themes with examples from 10 trials, including with 31 specific challenges we experienced. The themes were ethics/governance; accessing patient populations; recruitment; patient preference; test processes, clinical pathways and samples storage; uncertainty of diagnostic results; verifying diagnosis (reference standard); follow-up; adverse effects; and diagnostic impact. CONCLUSION: We present 10 common themes, including 31 challenges, in test evaluation trials that will be helpful to others designing and managing future test evaluation trials. Proactive identification of potential challenges at the design and planning stages of test evaluation trials will enable strategies to improve trial design and management that may be different from standard strategies used for intervention trials. Future work could extend this topic to include challenges for other trial stakeholders including participants, clinicians, statisticians and funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: All trials reviewed in this project were registered and are provided in Table 1.

11ß-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibition in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Treatment options for idiopathic intracranial hypertension are limited. The enzyme 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 has been implicated in regulating cerebrospinal fluid secretion, and its activity is associated with alterations in intracranial pressure in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. We assessed therapeutic efficacy, safety and tolerability and investigated indicators of in vivo efficacy of the 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibitor AZD4017 compared with placebo in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. A multicenter, UK, 16-week phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 12-week treatment with AZD4017 or placebo was conducted. Women aged 18-55 years with active idiopathic intracranial hypertension (>25 cmH2O lumbar puncture opening pressure and active papilledema) were included. Participants received 400 mg of oral AZD4017 twice daily compared with matching placebo over 12 weeks. The outcome measures were initial efficacy, safety and tolerability. The primary clinical outcome was lumbar puncture opening pressure at 12 weeks analysed by intention-to-treat. Secondary clinical outcomes were symptoms, visual function, papilledema, headache and anthropometric measures. In vivo efficacy was evaluated in the central nervous system and systemically. A total of 31 subjects [mean age 31.2 (SD = 6.9) years and body mass index 39.2 (SD = 12.6) kg/m2] were randomized to AZD4017 (n = 17) or placebo (n = 14). At 12 weeks, lumbar puncture pressure was lower in the AZD4017 group (29.7 cmH2O) compared with placebo (31.3 cmH2O), but the difference between groups was not statistically significant (mean difference: -2.8, 95% confidence interval: -7.1 to 1.5; P = 0.2). An exploratory analysis assessing mean change in lumbar puncture pressure within each group found a significant decrease in the AZD4017 group [mean change: -4.3 cmH2O (SD = 5.7); P = 0.009] but not in the placebo group [mean change: -0.3 cmH2O (SD = 5.9); P = 0.8]. AZD4017 was safe, with no withdrawals related to adverse effects. Nine transient drug-related adverse events were reported. One serious adverse event occurred in the placebo group (deterioration requiring shunt surgery). In vivo biomarkers of 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 activity (urinary glucocorticoid metabolites, hepatic prednisolone generation, serum and cerebrospinal fluid cortisol:cortisone ratios) demonstrated significant enzyme inhibition with the reduction in serum cortisol:cortisone ratio correlating significantly with reduction in lumbar puncture pressure (P = 0.005, R = 0.70). This is the first phase II randomized controlled trial in idiopathic intracranial hypertension evaluating a novel therapeutic target. AZD4017 was safe and well tolerated and inhibited 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 activity in vivo. Reduction in serum cortisol:cortisone correlated with decreased intracranial pressure. Possible clinical benefits were noted in this small cohort. A longer, larger study would now be of interest.

Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of botulinum toxin for the prevention of migraine.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of botulinum toxin for prevention of migraine in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of botulinum toxin compared with placebo, active treatment or clinically relevant different dose for adults with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without the additional diagnosis of medication overuse headache. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Cochrane methods were used to review double-blind RCTs. Twelve week post-treatment time-point data was analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials (n=4190) were included. Trial quality was mixed. Botulinum toxin treatment resulted in reduced frequency of -2.0 migraine days/month (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, n=1384) in chronic migraineurs compared with placebo. An improvement was seen in migraine severity, measured on a numerical rating scale 0 to 10 with 10 being maximal pain, of -2.70 cm (95% CI -3.31 to -2.09, n=75) and -4.9 cm (95% CI -6.56 to -3.24, n=32) for chronic and episodic migraine respectively. Botulinum toxin had a relative risk of treatment related adverse events twice that of placebo, but a reduced risk compared with active comparators (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98) and a low withdrawal rate (3%). Although individual trials reported non-inferiority to oral treatments, insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin reduces migraine frequency by 2 days/month and has a favourable safety profile. Inclusion of medication overuse headache does not preclude its effectiveness. Evidence to support or refute efficacy in episodic migraine was not identified.

Rating the intelligibility of dysarthic speech amongst people with Parkinson's Disease: a comparison of trained and untrained listeners.

Intelligibility of speech is a key outcome in speech and language therapy (SLT) and research. SLT students frequently participate as raters of intelligibility but we lack information about whether they rate intelligibility in the same way as the general public. This paper aims to determine if there is a difference in the intelligibility ratings made by SLT students (trained in speech related topics) compared to individuals from the general public (untrained). The SLT students were in year 2 of a BSc programme or the first 6 months of a MSc programme. We recorded 10 speakers with Parkinson's disease (PD) related speech reading aloud the words and sentences from the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. These speech recordings were rated for intelligibility by 'trained' raters and 'untrained' raters. The effort required to understand the speech was also reported. There were no significant differences in the measures of intelligibility from the trained and untrained raters for words or sentences after adjusting for speaker by including them as a covariate in the model. There was a slight increase in effort reported by the untrained raters for the sentences. This difference in reported effort was not evident with the words. SLT students can be recruited alongside individuals from the general public as naïve raters for evaluating intelligibility in people with speech disorders.

Botulinum toxins for the prevention of migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Migraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero-type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12-week post-treatment follow-up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: Description of trialsWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long-term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and 'mixed group' classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Botulinum toxin versus placeboTwenty-three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to -1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low-quality evidence). This was reduced to -2 days (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate-quality evidence) when we removed small trials.A single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).In the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI -2.7 to -1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high-quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low-quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5, very low-quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality-of-life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.Botulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agentThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta-analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between-group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low-quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).Dosing trialsThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non-serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: a pilot randomised controlled trial (PD COMM pilot).

BACKGROUND: Speech-related problems are common in Parkinson's disease (PD), but there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard speech and language therapy (SLT) or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). METHODS: The PD COMM pilot was a three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of LSVT LOUD®, SLT and no intervention (1:1:1 ratio) to assess the feasibility and to inform the design of a full-scale RCT. Non-demented patients with idiopathic PD and speech problems and no SLT for speech problems in the past 2 years were eligible. LSVT LOUD® is a standardised regime (16 sessions over 4 weeks). SLT comprised individualised content per local practice (typically weekly sessions for 6-8 weeks). Outcomes included recruitment and retention, treatment adherence, and data completeness. Outcome data collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included patient-reported voice and quality of life measures, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were randomised with 90% in the therapy groups and 100% in the control group completing the trial. The response rate for Voice Handicap Index (VHI) in each arm was ≥ 90% at all time-points. VHI was highly correlated with the other speech-related outcome measures. There was a trend to improvement in VHI with LSVT LOUD® (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 12.5 points; 95% CI - 26.2, 1.2) and SLT (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 9.8 points; 95% CI - 23.2, 3.7) which needs to be confirmed in an adequately powered trial. CONCLUSION: Randomisation to a three-arm trial of speech therapy including a no intervention control is feasible and acceptable. Compliance with both interventions was good. VHI and other patient-reported outcomes were relevant measures and provided data to inform the sample size for a substantive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. registered 22 March 2012.

Randomised controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus a community weight loss programme for the sustained treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension: the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Weight Trial (IIH:WT) protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments are lacking for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), a condition characterised by raised intracranial pressure (ICP) and papilloedema, and found primarily in obese women. Weight loss and lowering body mass index (BMI) have been shown to lower ICP and improve symptoms in IIH; however, weight loss is typically not maintained, meaning IIH symptoms return. The Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Weight Trial (IIH:WT) will assess whether bariatric surgery is an effective long-term treatment for patients with IIH with a BMI over 35 kg/m2. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends bariatric surgery in people with a BMI over 35 kg/m2 and a qualifying comorbidity; currently IIH does not qualify as a comorbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: IIH:WT is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial of 64 participants with active IIH and a BMI over 35 kg/m2. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to bariatric surgery or a dietary weight loss programme and followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome measure is ICP at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include ICP at 24 and 60 months, and IIH symptoms, visual function, papilloedema, headache, quality of life and cost-effectiveness at 12, 24 and 60 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IIH:WT is registered as ISRCTN40152829 and on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02124486 and is in the pre-results stage.

Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of an 11ß-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 Inhibitor (AZD4017) in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Drug Trial, IIH:DT: Clinical Methods and Design for a Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a condition with few effective management options. So far, there have been no randomized controlled trials evaluating new treatments in IIH. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to outline the trial design for the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Drug Trial (IIH:DT), assessing an innovative medical treatment in IIH and the rationale for the chosen trial methodology. METHODS: IIH:DT is a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial recruiting 30 female participants with active IIH (intracranial pressure >25cm H2 O and papilledema). Participants are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 12 weeks of either AZD4017, an 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibitor, or a matching placebo. They receive either 400 mg of AZD4017 or placebo twice daily. Participants are followed up at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16 postrandomization. The primary outcome is to examine the effect of AZD4017 on intracranial pressure, measured by lumbar puncture, over 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include IIH symptoms, visual function, papilledema, headache measures, safety, and tolerability. Cerebrospinal fluid, serum, plasma, urine, and adipose tissue are also taken for exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: All participants were recruited between April 2014 and August 2016. CONCLUSIONS: IIH:DT is the first phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy and safety of the novel pharmacological intervention, AZD4017, for the treatment of IIH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02017444; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02017444 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tVHesN6s).

The PD COMM trial: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM trial is a phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trial whose aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to speech and language therapy (SLT) compared with no SLT intervention (control) for people with Parkinson's disease who have self-reported or carer-reported problems with their speech or voice. Our protocol describes the process evaluation embedded within the outcome evaluation whose aim is to evaluate what happened at the time of the PD COMM intervention implementation and to provide findings that will assist in the interpretation of the PD COMM trial results. Furthermore, the aim of the PD COMM process evaluation is to investigate intervention complexity within a theoretical model of how the trialled interventions might work best and why. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing from the Normalization Process Theory and frameworks for implementation fidelity, a mixed method design will be used to address process evaluation research questions. Therapists' and participants' perceptions and experiences will be investigated via in-depth interviews. Critical incident reports, baseline survey data from therapists, treatment record forms and home practice diaries also will be collected at relevant time points throughout the running of the PD COMM trial. Process evaluation data will be analysed independently of the outcome evaluation before the two sets of data are then combined. DISCUSSION: To date, there are a limited number of published process evaluation protocols, and few are linked to trials investigating rehabilitation therapies. Providing a strong theoretical framework underpinning design choices and being tailored to meet the complex characteristics of the trialled interventions, our process evaluation has the potential to provide valuable insight into which components of the interventions being delivered in PD COMM worked best (and what did not), how they worked well and why. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12421382 . Registered on 18 April 2016.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy and occupational therapy versus no therapy in mild to moderate Parkinson's disease: a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PD REHAB).

BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) for Parkinson's disease found insufficient evidence of effectiveness, but previous trials were methodologically flawed with small sample size and short-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individualised PT and OT in Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Large pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty-eight neurology and geriatric medicine outpatient clinics in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixty-two patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease reporting limitations in activities of daily living (ADL). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised online to either both PT and OT NHS services (n = 381) or no therapy (n = 381). Therapy incorporated a patient-centred approach with individual assessment and goal setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was instrumental ADL measured by the patient-completed Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life [Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39); European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], adverse events, resource use and carer quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Outcomes were assessed before randomisation and at 3, 9 and 15 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Data from 92% of the participants in each group were available at the primary time point of 3 months, but there was no difference in NEADL total score [difference 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.4] or PDQ-39 summary index (0.007 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.5; p = 1.0) between groups. The EQ-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favour of therapy (-0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.002; p = 0.04). Contact time with therapists was for a median of four visits of 58 minutes each over 8 weeks (mean dose 232 minutes). Repeated measures analysis including all time points showed no difference in NEADL total score, but PDQ-39 summary index (curves diverging at 1.6 points per annum, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62; p = 0.005) and EQ-5D quotient (0.02, 95% CI 0.00007 to 0.03; p = 0.04) showed significant but small differences in favour of the therapy arm. Cost-effective analysis showed that therapy was associated with a slight but not significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (0.027, 95% CI -0.010 to 0.065) at a small incremental cost (£164, 95% CI -£141 to £468), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of under £4000 (£3493, 95% -£169,371 to £176,358). There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: NHS PT and OT did not produce immediate or long-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centred, goal-directed PT and OT in patients in the early stages of Parkinson's disease. Future research should include the development and testing of more structured and intensive PT and OT programmes in patients with all stages of Parkinson's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17452402. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, received support from the UK Department of Health up to March 2012. Catherine Sackley was supported by a NIHR senior investigator award, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England and West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Clinical Academic Training award.

Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS): protocol for a prospective longitudinal test accuracy study to validate new risk scores in women with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian cancer (OC) is associated with non-specific symptoms such as bloating, making accurate diagnosis challenging: only 1 in 3 women with OC presents through primary care referral. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommends sequential testing with CA125 and routine ultrasound in primary care. However, these diagnostic tests have limited sensitivity or specificity. Improving accurate triage in women with vague symptoms is likely to improve mortality by streamlining referral and care pathways. The Refining Ovarian Cancer Test Accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS; HTA 13/13/01) project will derive and validate new tests/risk prediction models that estimate the probability of having OC in women with symptoms. This protocol refers to the prospective study only (phase III). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ROCkeTS comprises four parallel phases. The full ROCkeTS protocol can be found at http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ROCKETS. Phase III is a prospective test accuracy study. The study will recruit 2450 patients from 15 UK sites. Recruited patients complete symptom and anxiety questionnaires, donate a serum sample and undergo ultrasound scored as per International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) criteria. Recruitment is at rapid access clinics, emergency departments and elective clinics. Models to be evaluated include those based on ultrasound derived by the IOTA group and novel models derived from analysis of existing data sets. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, c-statistic (area under receiver operating curve), positive predictive value and negative predictive value of diagnostic tests are evaluated and a calibration plot for models will be presented. ROCkeTS has received ethical approval from the NHS West Midlands REC (14/WM/1241) and is registered on the controlled trials website (ISRCTN17160843) and the National Institute of Health Research Cancer and Reproductive Health portfolios.

Cost-utility analysis of deep brain stimulation surgery plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy in patients with Parkinson's: Economic evaluation alongside the PD SURG trial.

INTRODUCTION: Williams and colleagues reported that DBS surgery for patients with advanced PD improves motor function and quality of life compared to best medical therapy alone at 1 year, but with surgery-related side effects in a minority. This article reports on the economic evaluation alongside this trial. METHODS: Detailed resource use and quality of life over 12 months after randomization was obtained from the trial reported by Williams and colleagues. Outcomes were measured using the EQ-5D and quality-adjusted life years calculated. RESULTS: Year 1 costs for surgery were significantly higher than in best medical therapy, at £19,069 compared to £9,813, a difference of £9,256 (95% confidence interval [CI]: £7,625, £10,887). There was a small, significant gain in utility at 1 year but a statistically insignificant gain of 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (95% CI: -0.015, 0.05) in the surgical arm. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year of surgery at 1 year was £468,528. Extrapolation reveals that after 5 years, this ratio is likely to reduce to £45,180, but subsequently rise to £70,537 at 10 years owing to the increased probability of battery replacements (and re-replacements) beyond 5 years. CONCLUSION: In this patient group, DBS is not cost-effective at 1 year. Extrapolation, however, reveals an increasing likelihood of cost-effectiveness up to 5 years and reducing cost-effectiveness between 5 and 10 years. These models are sensitive to assumptions about future costs and quality-adjusted life years gained. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy vs No Therapy in Mild to Moderate Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: It is unclear whether physiotherapy and occupational therapy are clinically effective and cost-effective in Parkinson disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: To perform a large pragmatic randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of individualized physiotherapy and occupational therapy in PD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The PD REHAB Trial was a multicenter, open-label, parallel group, controlled efficacy trial. A total of 762 patients with mild to moderate PD were recruited from 38 sites across the United Kingdom. Recruitment took place between October 2009 and June 2012, with 15 months of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) were randomized to physiotherapy and occupational therapy or no therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) Scale score at 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (assessed by Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 and EuroQol-5D); adverse events; and caregiver quality of life. Outcomes were assessed before trial entry and then 3, 9, and 15 months after randomization. RESULTS: Of the 762 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 70 [9.1] years), 381 received physiotherapy and occupational therapy and 381 received no therapy. At 3 months, there was no difference between groups in NEADL total score (difference, 0.5 points; 95% CI, -0.7 to 1.7; P = .41) or Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 summary index (0.007 points; 95% CI, -1.5 to 1.5; P = .99). The EuroQol-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favor of therapy (-0.03; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.002; P = .04). The median therapist contact time was 4 visits of 58 minutes over 8 weeks. Repeated-measures analysis showed no difference in NEADL total score, but Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 summary index (diverging 1.6 points per annum; 95% CI, 0.47 to 2.62; P = .005) and EuroQol-5D score (0.02; 95% CI, 0.00007 to 0.03; P = .04) showed small differences in favor of therapy. There was no difference in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Physiotherapy and occupational therapy were not associated with immediate or medium-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in mild to moderate PD. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centered, goal-directed physiotherapy and occupational therapy in patients in the early stages of PD. Future research should explore the development and testing of more structured and intensive physical and occupational therapy programs in patients with all stages of PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN17452402.

Comparing results from long and short form versions of the Parkinson's disease questionnaire in a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which summary index scores from the short form Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) replicate those from the parent form (PDQ-39) in a longitudinal study. METHODS: Longitudinal data gained from the PD-MED trial were examined (n = 1867), to determine the extent the PDQ-8 replicates results from the PDQ-39 at baseline and follow up. The sensitivity to change of the PDQ-8 was also compared with that of the PDQ-39. Finally, results on the two measures were compared with those from the Hoehn and Yahr (HY) clinical staging scale. RESULTS: Results of the Single Index summary score gained from the PDQ-8 were found to closely replicate those gained from the PDQ-39 at each of the three time points. Furthermore at each time point the intraclass correlation coefficient between the two measures was very high (ICC range 0.93-0.96). Similarly, the two measures gave very similar accounts of change (e.g. from baseline to follow up at one year effect sizes were 0.18 for the single index calculated using the PDQ-39, and 0.09 when calculated using the PDQ-8). Similar levels of correlation were found between the two indices when correlated with the HY scale. CONCLUSIONS: The PDQ-8 closely replicates results gained from the PDQ-39 when calculating single indices. In instances where a single summary score of the impact of PD on self-reported quality of life is needed, it is likely the PDQ-8 will provide reliable and accurate information.

A cluster randomised feasibility trial evaluating nutritional interventions in the treatment of malnutrition in care home adult residents.

BACKGROUND: Protein energy malnutrition (PEM) predisposes individuals to disease, delays recovery from illness and reduces quality of life. Care home residents in the United Kingdom are especially vulnerable, with an estimated 30 to 42 % at risk. Evidence for nutritional interventions to address PEM in the care home setting is lacking. Widely used techniques include food-based intervention and/or the use of prescribed oral nutritional supplements. To define outcomes and optimise the design for an adequately powered definitive trial to compare the efficacy of established nutritional interventions in this setting, a cluster randomised feasibility trial with a 6-month intervention was undertaken. METHODS: Care home residents with or at risk of malnutrition were identified across six UK care home sites from September to December 2013. Homes were cluster randomised to standard care (SC), food-based intervention (FB) or oral nutritional supplement intervention (ONS), for 6 months. Key outcomes were trial feasibility and the acceptability of design, allocated interventions and outcome assessments. Anthropometry, dietary intake, healthcare resource usage and participant-reported outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: All six care homes approached were recruited and retained. Of the 110 residents at risk of malnutrition, 85 % entered the trial, and 68 % completed the 6-month intervention. Pre-specified success criteria for feasibility were met for recruitment and retention, intervention acceptability (resident compliance ≥60 %) and measurement of weight, body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumference and dietary intake (data completeness >80 %). Measurement of handgrip strength and triceps skinfold thickness was not found to be feasible in this population. The 95 % confidence interval (CI) data suggested sensitivity to change in dietary intake for weight, BMI and energy intake between baseline and 3 months when each intervention (FB and ONS) was compared with SC. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial comparing the efficacy of nutritional support interventions in increasing weight and BMI in malnourished care home residents can be conducted. However, whilst the design was feasible, this trial has highlighted the lack of clinically and patient-relevant outcome measures that are appropriate for use in this setting for both research and clinical practice. In particular, this trial identified a need for a more simple measure of functional status, which considers the limitations of functional tests in the care home population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38047922 , Date assigned: 22 April 2014.