Breath-based non-invasive diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: a pilot study.

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) will help researchers to better understand the disease and develop improved treatments. Recent developments have thus focused on identifying biomarkers for mild cognitive impairment due to AD (MCI) and AD during the preclinical phase. The aim of this pilot study is to determine whether exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be used as a non-invasive method to distinguish controls from MCI, controls from AD and to determine whether there are differences between MCI and AD. The study used gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) techniques. Confounding factors, such as age, smoking habits, gender and alcohol consumption are investigated to demonstrate the efficacy of results. One hundred subjects were recruited including 50 controls, 25 AD and 25 MCI patients. The subject cohort was age- and gender-matched to minimise bias. Breath samples were analysed using a commercial GC-IMS instrument (G.A.S. BreathSpec, Dortmund, Germany). Data analysis indicates that the GC-IMS signal was consistently able to separate between diagnostic groups [AUC ± 95%, sensitivity, specificity], controls versus MCI: [0.77 (0.64-0.90), 0.68, 0.80], controls versus AD: [0.83 (0.72-0.94), 0.60, 0.96], and MCI versus AD: [0.70 (0.55-0.85), 0.60, 0.84]. VOC analysis indicates that six compounds play a crucial role in distinguishing between diagnostic groups. Analysis of possible confounding factors indicate that gender, age, smoking habits and alcohol consumption have insignificant influence on breath content. This pilot study confirms the utility of exhaled breath analysis to distinguish between AD, MCI and control subjects. Thus, GC-IMS offers great potential as a non-invasive, high-throughput, diagnostic technique for diagnosing and potentially monitoring AD in a clinical setting.

The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure) trial found that the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aims of this study were to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of the addition of REACH-HF intervention or home-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care compared with usual care alone in patients with HFrEF. DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed using a patient lifetime horizon and integrating evidence from the REACH-HF trial, a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomised trials, estimates of mortality and hospital admission and UK costs at 2015/2016 prices. Taking a UK National Health and Personal Social Services perspective we report the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, assessing uncertainty using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In base case analysis, the REACH-HF intervention was associated with per patient mean QALY gain of 0.23 and an increased mean cost of £400 compared with usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £1720. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 78% probability that REACH-HF is cost effective versus usual care at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results were similar for home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings to be robust to changes in model assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our cost-utility analyses indicate that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are likely to be cost-effective treatment options versus usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.

The effects and costs of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduces hospitalizations in patients with heart failure, but international uptake of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure remains low. DESIGN AND METHODS: The aim of this multicentre randomized trial was to compare the REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronicHeart Failure) intervention, a facilitated self-care and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme to usual care for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The study primary hypothesis was that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention to usual care would improve disease-specific HRQoL (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ)) at 12 months compared with usual care alone. RESULTS: The study recruited 216 participants, predominantly men (78%), with an average age of 70 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%. Overall, 185 (86%) participants provided data for the primary outcome. At 12 months, there was a significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference in the MLHFQ score of -5.7 points (95% confidence interval -10.6 to -0.7) in favour of the REACH-HF intervention group ( p = 0.025). With the exception of patient self-care ( p < 0.001) there was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including clinical events ( p > 0.05) at follow-up compared with usual care. The mean cost of the REACH-HF intervention was £418 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The novel REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFrEF was clinically superior in disease-specific HRQoL at 12 months and offers an affordable alternative to traditional centre-based programmes to address current low cardiac rehabilitation uptake rates for heart failure.

A randomised controlled trial of a facilitated home-based rehabilitation intervention in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and their caregivers: the REACH-HFpEF Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation may overcome suboptimal rates of participation. The overarching aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the novel Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Hear Failure (REACH-HF) rehabilitation intervention for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and their caregivers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group). REACH-HF is a home-based comprehensive self-management rehabilitation programme that comprises patient and carer manuals with supplementary tools, delivered by trained healthcare facilitators over a 12 week period. Patient outcomes were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, 3 months and 6 months postrandomisation and included health-related quality of life (primary) and psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity and HF-related hospitalisation (secondary). Outcomes were also collected in caregivers.We enrolled 50 symptomatic patients with HF from Tayside, Scotland with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% (mean age 73.9 years, 54% female, 100% white British) and 21 caregivers. Study retention (90%) and intervention uptake (92%) were excellent. At 6 months, data from 45 patients showed a potential direction of effect in favour of the intervention group, including the primary outcome of Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire total score (between-group mean difference -11.5, 95% CI -22.8 to 0.3). A total of 11 (4 intervention, 7 control) patients experienced a hospital admission over the 6 months of follow-up with 4 (control patients) of these admissions being HF-related. Improvements were seen in a number intervention caregivers' mental health and burden compared with control. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the feasibility and rationale for delivering the REACH-HF facilitated home-based rehabilitation intervention for patients with HFpEF and their caregivers and progression to a full multicentre randomised clinical trial to test its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN78539530.

PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)--patient controlled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in providing effective analgesia for patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe non-traumatic abdominal pain. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial SETTING: Five English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 200 adults (66% (n=130) female), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe non-traumatic abdominal pain and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patient controlled analgesia or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant's hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate or severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: 196 participants were included in the primary analyses (99 allocated to PCA and 97 to treatment as usual). Mean total pain experienced was 35.3 (SD 25.8) in the PCA group compared with 47.3 (24.7) in the treatment as usual group. The adjusted between group difference was 6.3 (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 11.9). Participants in the PCA group received significantly more morphine (mean 36.1 (SD 22.4) v 23.6 (13.1) mg; mean difference 12.3 (95% confidence interval 7.2 to 17.4) mg), spent less of the study period in moderate or severe pain (32.6% v 46.9%; mean difference 14.5% (5.6% to 23.5%)), and were more likely to be perfectly or very satisfied with the management of their pain (83% (73/88) v 66% (57/87); adjusted odds ratio 2.56 (1.25 to 5.23)) in comparison with participants in the treatment as usual group. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions in pain can be achieved by PCA compared with treatment as usual in patients presenting to the emergency department with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280.

PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)--patient controlled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with pain from traumatic injuries: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 200 adults (71% (n = 142) male), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours. INTERVENTIONS: PCA (n = 99) or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual; n = 101). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant's hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate/severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: 200 participants were included in the primary analyses. Mean total pain experienced was 47.2 (SD 21.9) for the treatment as usual group and 44.0 (24.0) for the PCA group. Adjusted analyses indicated slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower total pain experienced in the PCA group than in the routine care group (mean difference 2.7, 95% confidence interval -2.4 to 7.8). Participants allocated to PCA used more morphine in total than did participants in the treatment as usual group (mean 44.3 (23.2) v 27.2 (18.2) mg; mean difference 17.0, 11.3 to 22.7). PCA participants spent, on average, less time in moderate/severe pain (36.2% (31.0) v 44.1% (31.6)), but the difference was not statistically significant. A higher proportion of PCA participants reported being perfectly or very satisfied compared with the treatment as usual group (86% (78/91) v 76% (74/98)), but this was also not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: PCA provided no statistically significant reduction in pain compared with routine care for emergency department patients with traumatic injuries. Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280.