Adapting the EQ-5D-3L for adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.5 million adults in the UK have a learning disability. The difference between age at death for this group and the general population is 26 years for females and 22 years for males. The NHS Long Term Plan (January 2019) recognises learning disabilities as a clinical priority area. People with a learning disability are often excluded from research by design or lack of reasonable adjustments, and self-reported health status/health-related quality of life questionnaires such as the EQ-5D are often not appropriate for this population. Here, we systematically examine the EQ-5D-3L (its wording, content, and format) using qualitative methods to inform the adaption of the measure for use with adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities. METHODS: Think-aloud interviews with carers/advocates of learning-disabled adults were undertaken to explore the difficulties with completing the EQ-5D-3L. Alternative wording, language, structure, and images were developed using focus groups, stakeholder reference groups, and an expert panel. Data analysis followed a framework method. RESULTS: The dimensions and levels within the EQ-5D-3L were deemed appropriate for adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities. Consensus on wording, structure, and images was reached through an iterative process, and an adapted version of the EQ-5D-3L was finalised. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D-3L adapted for adults with mild to moderate intellectual/learning disabilities can facilitate measurement of self-reported health status. Research is underway to assess the potential use of the adaptation for economic evaluation.

Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

The disruptions to health research during the COVID-19 pandemic are being recognized globally, and there is a growing need for understanding the pandemic's impact on the health and health preferences of patients, caregivers, and the general public. Ongoing and planned health preference research (HPR) has been affected due to problems associated with recruitment, data collection, and data interpretation. While there are no "one size fits all" solutions, this commentary summarizes the key challenges in HPR within the context of the pandemic and offers pragmatic solutions and directions for future research. We recommend recruitment of a diverse, typically under-represented population in HPR using online, quota-based crowdsourcing platforms, and community partnerships. We foresee emerging evidence on remote, and telephone-based HPR modes of administration, with further studies on the shifts in preferences related to health and healthcare services as a result of the pandemic. We believe that the recalibration of HPR, due to what one would hope is an impermanent change, will permanently change how we conduct HPR in the future.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pain Management Strategies in Advanced Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Uncontrolled pain in advanced cancer is a common problem and has significant impact on individuals' quality of life and use of healthcare resources. Interventions to help manage pain at the end of life are available, but there is limited economic evidence to support their wider implementation. We conducted a case study economic evaluation of two pain self-management interventions (PainCheck and Tackling Cancer Pain Toolkit [TCPT]) compared with usual care. METHODS: We generated a decision-analytic model to facilitate the evaluation. This modelled the survival of individuals at the end of life as they moved through pain severity categories. Intervention effectiveness was based on published meta-analyses results. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the U.K. health service provider and reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: PainCheck and TCPT were cheaper (respective incremental costs -GBP148 [-EUR168.53] and -GBP474 [-EUR539.74]) and more effective (respective incremental QALYs of 0.010 and 0.013) than usual care. There was a 65 percent and 99.5 percent chance of cost-effectiveness for PainCheck and TCPT, respectively. Results were relatively robust to sensitivity analyses. The most important driver of cost-effectiveness was level of pain reduction (intervention effectiveness). Although cost savings were modest per patient, these were considerable when accounting for the number of potential intervention beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Educational and monitoring/feedback interventions have the potential to be cost-effective. Economic evaluations based on estimates of effectiveness from published meta-analyses and using a decision modeling approach can support commissioning decisions and implementation of pain management strategies.

Effect of rituximab on a salivary gland ultrasound score in primary Sjögren's syndrome: results of the TRACTISS randomised double-blind multicentre substudy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of rituximab versus placebo on salivary gland ultrasound (SGUS) in primary Sjögren's syndrome (PSS) in a multicentre, multiobserver phase III trial substudy. METHODS: Subjects consenting to SGUS were randomised to rituximab or placebo given at weeks 0, 2, 24 and 26, and scanned at baseline and weeks 16 and 48. Sonographers completed a 0-11 total ultrasound score (TUS) comprising domains of echogenicity, homogeneity, glandular definition, glands involved and hypoechoic foci size. Baseline-adjusted TUS values were analysed over time, modelling change from baseline at each time point. For each TUS domain, we fitted a repeated-measures logistic regression model to model the odds of a response in the rituximab arm (≥1-point improvement) as a function of the baseline score, age category, disease duration and time point. RESULTS: 52 patients (n=26 rituximab and n=26 placebo) from nine centres completed baseline and one or more follow-up visits. Estimated between-group differences (rituximab-placebo) in baseline-adjusted TUS were -1.2 (95% CI -2.1 to -0.3; P=0.0099) and -1.2 (95% CI -2.0 to -0.5; P=0.0023) at weeks 16 and 48. Glandular definition improved in the rituximab arm with an OR of 6.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 43.0; P=0.043) at week 16 and 10.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 105.9; P=0.050) at week 48. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated statistically significant improvement in TUS after rituximab compared with placebo. This encourages further research into both B cell depletion therapies in PSS and SGUS as an imaging biomarker. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 65360827, 2010-021430-64; Results.

Effect of tight control of inflammation in early psoriatic arthritis (TICOPA): a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention and tight control of inflammation optimise outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis but these approaches have not yet been studied in psoriatic arthritis. We aimed to assess the effect of tight control on early psoriatic arthritis using a treat-to-target approach. METHODS: For this open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with early psoriatic arthritis (<24 months symptom duration), who had not previously received treatment with any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, were enrolled from eight secondary care rheumatology centres in the UK. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tight control (with review every 4 weeks and with escalation of treatment if minimal disease activity criteria not met) or standard care (standard therapy according to the treating clinician, with review every 12 weeks) for 48 weeks. Randomisation was done by minimisation incorporating a random element, to ensure treatment groups were balanced for randomising centre and pattern of arthritis (oligoarticular vs polyarticular). The randomisation procedure was done through a central 24-h automated telephone system based at the Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research (Leeds, UK). This was an open-label study in which patients and clinicians were aware of treatment group assignment. Clinical outcomes were recorded by a masked assessor every 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% (ACR20) response at 48 weeks, analysed by intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing ACR components. Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01106079, and the ISCRCTN registry, number ISCRCTN30147736. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2008, and March 21, 2012, 206 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive tight control (n=101) or standard care (n=105). In the intention-to-treat patient population, the odds of achieving an ACR20 response at 48 weeks were higher in the tight control group than in the standard care group (odds ratio 1·91, 95% CI 1·03-3·55; p=0·0392). Serious adverse events were reported by 20 (10%) patients (25 events in 14 [14%] patients in the tight control group and eight events in six [6%] patients in the standard care group) during the course of the study. No unexpected serious adverse events or deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Tight control of psoriatic arthritis disease activity through a treat-to-target approach significantly improves joint outcomes for newly diagnosed patients, with no unexpected serious adverse events reported. FUNDING: Arthritis Research UK and Pfizer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tight Control of Inflammation in Early Psoriatic Arthritis: Economic Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Treat-to-target approaches have proved to be effective in rheumatoid arthritis, but have not been studied in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of tight control (TC) of inflammation in early PsA compared to standard care. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK-based, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Taking the perspective of the health care sector, effectiveness was measured using the 3-level EuroQol 5-domain, which allows for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented, which represent the additional cost per QALY gained over a 48-week time horizon. Sensitivity analyses are presented assessing the impact of variations in the analytical approach and assumptions on the cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: The mean cost and QALYs were higher in the TC group: £4,198 versus £2,000 and 0.602 versus 0.561. These values yielded an ICER of £53,948 per QALY. Bootstrapped uncertainty analysis suggests that the TC has a 0.07 probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000 threshold. Stratified analysis suggests that with certain costs being controlled, an ICER of £24,639 can be calculated for patients with a higher degree of disease severity. CONCLUSION: A tight control strategy to treat PsA is an effective intervention in the treatment pathway; however, this study does not find tight control to be cost-effective in most analyses. Lower drug prices, targeting polyarthritis patients, or reducing the frequency of rheumatology visits may improve value for money metrics in future studies.

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

Developing and feasibility testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation of a supported selfmanagement programme for adults with a learning disability and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of conducting research with hard to reach vulnerable groups are particularly pertinent for people with learning disabilities. Data collection methods for previous cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of health and social care interventions targeting people with learning disabilities have relied on health care/health insurance records or data collection forms completed by the service provider rather than by people with learning disabilities themselves. This paper reports on the development and testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for a supported self-management programme for people with mild/moderate learning disabilities and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A case finding study was conducted to identify types of health and social care use and data collection methods employed in previous studies with this population. Based on this evidence, resource use questionnaires for completion by GP staff and interviewer-administered participant questionnaires (covering a wider cost perspective and health-related quality of life) were tested within a feasibility RCT. Interviewer-administered questionnaires included the EQ-5D-3L (the NICE recommended measure for use in economic evaluation). Participants were adults > 18 years with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, with mental capacity to give consent to research participation. RESULTS: Data collection for questionnaires completed by GP staff requesting data for the last 12 months proved time intensive and difficult. Whilst 82.3% (121/147) of questionnaires were returned, up to 17% of service use items were recorded as unknown. Subsequently, a shorter recall period (4 months) led to a higher return rate but with a higher rate of missing data. Missing data for interviewer-administered participant questionnaires was > 8% but the interviewers reported difficulty with participant recall. Almost 60% (48/80) of participants had difficulty completing the EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation as to how service use can be recorded is recommended. Concerns about the reliability of identifying service use data directly from participants with a learning disability due to challenges in completion, specifically around recall, remain. The degree of difficulty to complete EQ-5D-3L indicates concerns regarding the appropriateness of using this measure in its current form in research with this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21 January 2013).

Managing with Learning Disability and Diabetes: OK-Diabetes - a case-finding study and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity and type 2 diabetes are common in adults with a learning disability. It is not known if the principles of self-management can be applied in this population. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a case-finding method and undertake an observational study of adults with a learning disability and type 2 diabetes, to develop a standardised supported self-management (SSM) intervention and measure of adherence and to undertake a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of SSM versus treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: Observational study and an individually randomised feasibility RCT. SETTING: Three cities in West Yorkshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: In the observational study: adults aged > 18 years with a mild or moderate learning disability, who have type 2 diabetes that is not being treated with insulin and who are living in the community. Participants had mental capacity to consent to research and to the intervention. In the RCT participants had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of > 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), a body mass index (BMI) of > 25 kg/m2 or self-reported physical activity below national guideline levels. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised SSM. TAU supported by an easy-read booklet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The number of eligible participants identified and sources of referral; (2) current living and support arrangements; (3) current health state, including level of HbA1c, BMI and waist circumference, blood pressure and lipids; (4) mood, preferences for change; (5) recruitment and retention in RCT; (6) implementation and adherence to the intervention; (7) completeness of data collection and values for candidate primary outcomes; and (8) qualitative data on participant experience of the research process and intervention. RESULTS: In the observational study we identified 147 eligible consenting participants. The mean age was 54.4 years. In total, 130 out of 147 (88%) named a key supporter, with 113 supporters (77%) being involved in diabetes management. The mean HbA1c level was 54.5 mmol/mol [standard deviation (SD) 14.8 mmol/mol; 7.1%, SD 1.4%]. The BMI of 65% of participants was > 30 kg/m2 and of 21% was > 40 kg/m2. Many participants reported low mood, dissatisfaction with lifestyle and diabetes management and an interest in change. Non-response rates were high (45/147, 31%) for medical data requested from the primary care team. In the RCT, 82 participants were randomised. The mean baseline HbA1c level was 56 mmol/mol (SD 16.5 mmol/mol; 7.3%, SD 1.5%) and the mean BMI was 34 kg/m2 (SD 7.6 kg/m2). All SSM sessions were completed by 35 out of 41 participants. The adherence measure was obtained in 37 out of 41 participants. The follow-up HbA1c level and BMI was obtained for 75 out of 82 (91%) and 77 out of 82 (94%) participants, respectively. Most participants reported a positive experience of the intervention. A low response rate and difficulty understanding the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were challenges in obtaining data for an economic analysis. LIMITATIONS: We recruited from only 60% of eligible general practices, and 90% of participants were on a general practice learning disability register, which meant that we did not recruit many participants from the wider population with milder learning disability. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive RCT is feasible and would need to recruit 194 participants per arm. The main barrier is the resource-intensive nature of recruitment. Future research is needed into the effectiveness of obesity treatments in this population, particularly estimating the longer-term outcomes that are important for health benefit. Research is also needed into improving ways of assessing quality of life in adults with a learning disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Improving the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with advanced cancer, research shows that pain is frequent, burdensome and undertreated. Evidence-based approaches to support cancer pain management have been developed but have not been implemented within the context of the UK National Health Service. This protocol is for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for a multicomponent intervention for pain management in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will assess the feasibility of implementation and uptake of evidence-based interventions, developed and piloted as part of the Improving the Management of Pain from Advanced Cancer in the Community Programme grant, into routine clinical practice and determine whether there are potential differences with respect to patient-rated pain, patient pain knowledge and experience, healthcare use, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. 160 patients will receive either the intervention (usual care plus supported self-management) delivered within the oncology clinic and palliative care services by locally assigned community palliative care nurses, consisting of a self-management educational intervention and eHealth intervention for routine pain assessment and monitoring; or usual care. The primary outcomes are to assess implementation and uptake of the interventions, and differences in terms of pain severity. Secondary outcomes include pain interference, participant pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. Outcome assessment will be blinded and patient-reported outcome measures collected via post at 6 and 12 weeks following randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This RCT has the potential to significantly influence National Health Service delivery to community-based patients with pain from advanced cancer. We aim to provide definitive evidence of whether two simple interventions delivered by community palliative care nurse in palliative care that support-self-management are clinically effective and cost-effective additions to standard community palliative care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18281271; Pre-results.

Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Pain from advanced cancer remains prevalent, severe and often under-treated. AIM: The aim of this study was to conduct a discrete choice experiment with patients to understand their preferences for pain management services and inform service development. METHODS: Focus groups were used to develop the attributes and levels of the discrete choice experiment. The attributes were: waiting time, type of healthcare professional, out-of-pocket costs, side-effect control, quality of communication, quality of information and pain control. Patients completed the discrete choice experiment along with clinical and health-related quality of life questions. Conditional and mixed logit models were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Patients with cancer pain (n = 221) and within palliative care services completed the survey (45% were female, mean age 64.6 years; age range 21-92 years). The most important aspects of pain management were: good pain control, zero out-of-pocket costs and good side-effect control. Poor or moderate pain control and £30 costs drew the highest negative preferences. Respondents preferred control of side effects and provision of better information and communication, over access to certain healthcare professionals. Those with lower health-related quality of life were less willing to wait for treatment and willing to incur higher costs. The presence of a carer influenced preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome attributes were more important than process attributes but the latter were still valued. Thus, supporting self-management, for example by providing better information on pain may be a worthwhile endeavour. However, service provision may need to account for individual characteristics given the heterogeneity in preferences.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results from the randomised, Phase IIB trial in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia to compare fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and low-dose rituximab: the Attenuated dose Rituximab with ChemoTherapy In Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (ARCTIC) trial.

BACKGROUND: The conventional frontline therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Rituximab (Mabthera®, Roche Products Ltd) targets the CD20 antigen, which is expressed at low levels in CLL. The standard dose of rituximab in CLL (375 mg/m2 in cycle 1 and 500 mg/m2 in cycles 2-6) was selected based on toxicity data only. Small doses of rituximab (as low as 20 mg) have biological activity in CLL, with an immediate reduction in circulating CLL cells and down-regulation of CD20. Phase II trials had suggested improved efficacy with the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR. The key assumption for the Attenuated dose Rituximab with ChemoTherapy In CLL (ARCTIC) trial was that the addition of mitoxantrone to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and low-dose rituximab would be more effective than conventional FCR. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) (100 mg of rituximab per cycle) was non-inferior to FCR in frontline CLL. Complete response (CR) rate was the primary end point, with the secondary end points being progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, eradication of minimal residual disease (MRD), safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: ARCTIC was a UK multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, Phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated CLL. A total of 206 patients with previously untreated CLL who required treatment, according to the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia criteria, were to be randomised to FCR or FCM-miniR. There was an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC) with a pre-planned interim efficacy assessment on 103 participants. RESULTS: The DMEC's interim analysis led to early trial closure. Although the response rates in both arms were higher than anticipated, FCM-miniR had a lower CR rate than FCR. This was partly attributable to the higher toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. A total of 100 participants completed FCR, 79 completed FCM-miniR and 21 commenced FCM-miniR but switched to FCR following DMEC recommendations. The CR rate for participants receiving FCR was 76%, compared with 55% for FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.73). Key secondary end points also showed that FCR was superior, with more participants achieving MRD negativity (57% for FCR vs. 46% for FCM-miniR). More participants experienced a serious adverse reaction with FCM-miniR compared with FCR (50% vs. 41%). At a median of 37.3 months' follow-up, the PFS and OS rates are good compared with previous studies, with no significant difference between the treatment arms. The economic analysis indicates that because FCM-miniR is less effective than FCR, FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon, producing a mean cost-saving of -£7723, a quality-adjusted life-year loss of -0.73 and a resulting incremental net monetary loss of -£6780. CONCLUSIONS: FCM-miniR is less well tolerated, with poorer response rates, than FCR, partly owing to the additional toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. In view of this, FCM-miniR will not be taken forward into a larger definitive Phase III trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields extremely high response rates compared with historical series with intravenous chemotherapy. FUTURE WORK: We shall compare the results of ARCTIC with those of the ADMIRE (Does the ADdition of Mitoxantrone Improve Response to FCR chemotherapy in patients with CLL?) trial, which compared FCR with FCM-R to assess the efficacy of low- versus standard-dose rituximab, allowing for the toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16544962. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Rituximab and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Fatigue and Oral Dryness in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether rituximab, an anti-B cell therapy, improves symptoms of fatigue and oral dryness in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial that included health economic analysis. Anti-Ro-positive patients with primary SS, symptomatic fatigue, and oral dryness were recruited from 25 UK rheumatology clinics from August 2011 to January 2014. Patients were centrally randomized to receive either intravenous (IV) placebo (250 ml saline) or IV rituximab (1,000 mg in 250 ml saline) in 2 courses at weeks 0, 2, 24, and 26, with pre- and postinfusion medication including corticosteroids. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 30% reduction in either fatigue or oral dryness at 48 weeks, as measured by visual analog scale. Other outcome measures included salivary and lacrimal flow rates, quality of life, scores on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index and EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index, symptoms of ocular and overall dryness, pain, globally assessed disease activity, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: All 133 patients who were randomized to receive placebo (n = 66) or rituximab (n = 67) were included in the primary analysis. Among patients with complete data, 21 of 56 placebo-treated patients and 24 of 61 rituximab-treated patients achieved the primary end point. After multiple imputation of missing outcomes, response rates in the placebo and rituximab groups were 36.8% and 39.8%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 1.13 [95% confidence interval 0.50, 2.55]). There were no significant improvements in any outcome measure except for unstimulated salivary flow. The mean ± SD costs per patient for rituximab and placebo were £10,752 ± 264.75 and £2,672 ± 241.71, respectively. There were slightly more adverse events (AEs) reported in total for rituximab, but there was no difference in serious AEs (10 in each group). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that rituximab is neither clinically effective nor cost-effective in this patient population.

Supported self-management for adults with type 2 diabetes and a learning disability (OK-Diabetes): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a learning disability (LD) are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but LD is not straightforward to define or identify, especially at the milder end of the spectrum, which makes case finding difficult. While supported self-management of health problems is now established, current material is largely educational and didactic with little that facilitates behavioural change. The interaction between the person with diabetes and others supporting their care is also largely unknown. For these reasons, there is considerable work needed to prepare for a definitive trial. The aim of this paper is to publish the abridged protocol of this preparatory work. METHODS/DESIGN: Phase I is a prospective case-finding study (target n = 120 to 350) to identify and characterise potential participants, while developing a standardised supported self-management intervention. Phase II is a randomised feasibility trial (target n = 80) with blinded outcome assessment. Patients identified in Phase I will be interviewed and consented prior to being randomised to (1) standard treatment, or (2) supported self-management. Both arms will also be provided with an 'easy read' accessible information resource on managing type 2 diabetes. The intervention will be standardised but delivered flexibly depending on patient need, including components for the participant, a supporter, and shared activities. Outcomes will be (i) robust estimates of eligibility, consent and recruitment rates with refined recruitment procedures; (ii) characterisation of the eligible population; (iii) a standardised intervention with associated written materials, (iv) adherence and negative outcomes measures; (v) preliminary estimates of adherence, acceptability, follow-up and missing data rates, along with refined procedures; and (vi) description of standard treatment. DISCUSSION: Our study will provide important information on the nature of type 2 diabetes in adults with LD living in the community, on the challenges of identifying those with milder LD, and on the possibilities of evaluating a standardised intervention to improve self-management in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21 January 2013).