Implementation of a national smoke-free prison policy: an economic evaluation within the Tobacco in Prisons (TIPs) study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of a smoke-free prison policy in Scotland, through assessments of the trade-offs between costs (healthcare and non-healthcare-related expenditure) and outcomes (health and non-health-related non-monetary consequences) of implementing the policy. DESIGN: A health economic evaluation consisting of three analyses (cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility), from the perspectives of the healthcare payer, prison service, people in custody and operational staff, assessed the trade-offs between costs and outcomes. Costs associated with the implementation of the policy, healthcare resource use and personal spend on nicotine products were considered, alongside health and non-health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of the policy was evaluated over 12-month and lifetime horizons (short term and long term). SETTING: Scotland's national prison estate. PARTICIPANTS: People in custody and operational prison staff. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a comprehensive (indoor and outdoor) smoke-free policy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concentration of secondhand smoke, health-related quality of life (health utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)) and various non-health outcomes (eg, incidents of assaults and fires). RESULTS: The short-term analyses suggest cost savings for people in custody and staff, improvements in concentration of secondhand smoke, with no consistent direction of change across other outcomes. The long-term analysis demonstrated that implementing smoke-free policy was cost-effective over a lifetime for people in custody and staff, with approximate cost savings of £28 000 and £450, respectively, and improvement in health-related quality of life of 0.971 QALYs and 0.262, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementing a smoke-free prison policy is cost-effective over the short term and long term for people in custody and staff.

3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is usually given as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer. We investigated whether 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy would be non-inferior to the usual 6 months of treatment. METHODS: The SCOT study was an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 244 centres. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer underwent central randomisation with minimisation for centre, choice of regimen, sex, disease site, N stage, T stage, and the starting dose of capecitabine. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens could consist of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (bolus and infused fluorouracil with oxaliplatin). The regimen was selected before randomisation in accordance with choices of the patient and treating physician. The primary study endpoint was disease-free survival and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1·13. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who started study treatment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN59757862, and follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: 6088 patients underwent randomisation between March 27, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013. The intended treatment was FOLFOX in 1981 patients and CAPOX in 4107 patients. 3044 patients were assigned to 3 month group and 3044 were assigned to 6 month group. Nine patients in the 3 month group and 14 patients in the 6 month group did not consent for their data to be used, leaving 3035 patients in the 3 month group and 3030 patients in the 6 month group for the intention-to-treat analyses. At the cutoff date for analysis, there had been 1482 disease-free survival events, with 740 in the 3 month group and 742 in the 6 month group. 3 year disease-free survival was 76·7% (95% CI 75·1-78·2) for the 3 month group and 77·1% (75·6-78·6) for the 6 month group, giving a hazard ratio of 1·006 (0·909-1·114, test for non-inferiority p=0·012), significantly below the non-inferiority margin. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or worse was more common in the 6 month group (237 [58%] of 409 patients for the subset with safety data) than in the 3 month group (103 [25%] of 420) and was long-lasting and associated with worse quality of life. 1098 serious adverse events were reported (492 reports in the 3 month group and 606 reports in the 6 month group) and 32 treatment-related deaths occurred (16 in each group). INTERPRETATION: In the whole study population, 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was non-inferior to 6 months of the same therapy for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer and was associated with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. Despite the fact the study was underpowered, these data suggest that a shorter duration leads to similar survival outcomes with better quality of life and thus might represent a new standard of care. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, NETSCC, and Cancer Research UK.

Development of a radical foster care intervention in Glasgow, Scotland.

Services for maltreated children are inadequate and lack infant mental health input in many parts of the world. A recent audit of Glasgow services revealed that children frequently 'revolve' between maltreating birth parents and various temporary foster placements for many years. Addressing infant mental health in this population will require radical change to current services. The New Orleans programme developed by the Tulane Infant Team in Louisiana is one such radical programme. Prior to the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test this programme in Glasgow, it was essential that policy-makers had some insight into the local model of service delivery and how a New Orleans model could impact. This article explores the structure and costs of the current Glasgow system and the potential costs and consequence impact of implementing a New Orleans model in Glasgow, using data obtained from the research literature, Glasgow City Council audit data and expert's opinion. A New Orleans-Glasgow model would likely shift resources from social services on to the NHS. The resource intensive nature of this model could increase the cost of an episode in care from £66 300 in the current system to £86 070; however, the probability of repeated episodes in care is likely to fall substantially, making the cost per child fall from £95 500 in the current system to £88 600. This study informed the design of a phase II explorative RCT, identified appropriate outcomes for measurement and areas of uncertainty for further research.

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of antenatal corticosteroids for planned birth in twins (STOPPIT-3): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the STOPPIT-3 study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) prior to planned birth of twins in a multicentre placebo-controlled trial with internal pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will comprise a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in at least 50 UK obstetric units. The target population is 1552 women with a twin pregnancy and a planned birth between 35 and 38+6 weeks' gestation recruited from antenatal clinics. Women will be randomised to Dexamethasone Phosphate (24 mg) or saline administered via two intramuscular injections 24 hours apart, 24-120 hours prior to scheduled birth. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is need for respiratory support within 72 hours of birth. Secondary and safety outcomes will be included. Cognitive and language development at age 2 years will be assessed in a subset of participants using the Parent report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire. We will also determine the cost effectiveness of the treatment with ACS compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: STOPPIT-3 has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research. It has been approved by the West Midlands Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0018). The results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentation and will also be communicated to the public via links with charity partners and social media. TRIAL SPONSOR: The University of Edinburgh and Lothian Health Board ACCORD, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN59959611.

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance.

The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.

BACKGROUND: The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. METHODS: There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments. RESULTS: Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. LIMITATIONS: The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development. CONCLUSIONS: This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. FUTURE WORK: We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources. FUNDING: This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Interventions are actions taken to make a change, for example heart surgery, an exercise programme or a smoking ban in public. Interventions are described as complex if they comprise several stages or parts or if the context in which they are delivered is complex. A framework on how to develop and evaluate complex interventions was last published by the Medical Research Council in 2006 (Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. London: Medical Research Council; 2006). This document describes how the framework has been updated to include advances in research methods and thinking and presents the new framework document. The updating process had four stages: (1) review of the literature to identify areas requiring update; (2) workshop of experts to discuss topics to update; (3) open consultation on a draft of the framework; and (4) writing the framework. The updated framework divides the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. Key updates include: the definition of a complex intervention was changed to include both the content of the intervention and the context in which it is conductedaddition of systems thinking methods: an approach that considers the broader system an intervention sits withinmore emphasis on interventions that are not developed by researchers (e.g. policy changes and health services delivery)emphasis on the usefulness of evidence as the key goal of complex intervention researchidentification of six elements to be addressed throughout the research process: context; theory refinement and testing; stakeholder involvement; identification of key uncertainties; intervention refinement; and economic considerations. The updated framework is intended to help those involved in funding and designing research to consider a range of approaches, questions and methods and to choose the most appropriate. It also aims to help researchers conduct and report research that is as useful as possible to users of research.

Cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study is to compare home versus in-hospital cervical ripening to determine whether home cervical ripening is safe (for the primary outcome of neonatal unit (NNU) admission), acceptable to women and cost-effective from the perspective of both women and the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a prospective multicentre observational cohort study with an internal pilot phase. We will obtain data from electronic health records from at least 14 maternity units offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 12 offering dinoprostone home cervical ripening. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed methods study to evaluate processes and women/partner experiences. Our primary sample size is 8533 women with singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at 39+0 weeks' gestation or more. To achieve this and contextualise our findings, we will collect data relating to a cohort of approximately 41 000 women undergoing IOL after 37 weeks. We will use mixed effects logistic regression for the non-inferiority comparison of NNU admission and propensity score matched adjustment to control for treatment indication bias. The economic analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) and the pregnant woman. It will include a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis and a lifetime cost-utility analysis to account for any long-term impacts of the cervical ripening strategies. Outcomes will be reported as incremental cost per NNU admission avoided and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained. RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: CHOICE has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology and Assessment, and the results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32652461.

Eradicating hepatitis C: Are novel screening strategies for people who inject drugs cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: In developed countries, people who inject drugs (PWID) have a high prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV), yet they are often under-diagnosed. The World Health Organization has set 2030 as a target year for HCV elimination. To meet this target, improving screening in convenient community settings in order to reach infected undiagnosed individuals is a priority. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of alternative novel strategies for diagnosing HCV infection in PWID. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to compare HCV screening at needle exchange centres, substance misuse services and at community pharmacies, with the standard practice of detection during general practitioners' consultations. A decision tree model was developed to assess the incremental cost per positive diagnosis, and a Markov model explored the net monetary benefit (NMB) and the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Needle exchange services provided a 7.45-fold increase in detecting positive individuals and an incremental cost of £12,336 per QALY gained against current practice (NMB £163,827), making this the most cost-effective strategy over a lifetime horizon. Screening at substance misuse services and pharmacies was cost-effective only at a £30,000/QALY threshold. With a 24% discount to HCV treatment list prices, all three screening strategies become cost-effective at £20,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting PWID populations with screening at needle exchange services is a highly cost-effective strategy for reaching undiagnosed HCV patients. When applying realistic discounts to list prices of drug treatments, all three strategies were highly cost-effective from a UK NHS perspective. All of these strategies have the potential to make a cost-effective contribution to the eradication of HCV by 2030.

A protocol for the economic evaluation of the smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III (CPIT III).

INTRODUCTION: Smoking results in an average 10-year loss of life, but smokers who permanently quit before age 40 can expect a near normal lifespan. Pregnancy poses a good opportunity to help women to stop; around 80% of women in the UK have a baby, most of whom are less than 40 years of age. Smoking prevalence during pregnancy is high: 17%-23% in the UK. Smoking during pregnancy causes low birth weight and increases the risk of premature birth. After birth, passive smoking is linked to sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory diseases and increased likelihood of taking up smoking. These risks impact the long-term health of the child with associated increase in health costs. Emerging evidence suggests that offering financial incentives to pregnant women to quit is highly cost effective.This protocol describes the economic evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III, CPIT III) designed to establish whether offering financial incentives, in addition to usual care, is effective and cost effective in helping pregnant women to quit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation will identify, measure and value resource use and outcomes from CPIT III, comparing participants randomised to either usual care or usual care plus up to £400 financial incentives. Within-trial and long-term analyses will be conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective; the outcome for both analyses will be quality adjusted life-years measured using EQ-5D-5L. Patient level data collected during the trial will be used for the within-trial analysis, with an additional outcome of cotinine validated quit rates at 34-38 weeks gestation and 6 months postpartum. The long-term model will be informed by data from the trial and published literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15236311; Pre-results (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15236311).

Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework.

INTRODUCTION: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

Accelerated, Dose escalated, Sequential Chemoradiotherapy in Non-small-cell lung cancer (ADSCaN): a protocol for a randomised phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality in the UK, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Most patients present with inoperable disease; therefore, radiotherapy plays a major role in treatment. However, the majority of patients are not suitable for the gold standard treatment (concurrent chemoradiotherapy) due to performance status and comorbidities. Novel strategies integrating radiotherapy advances and radiobiological knowledge need to be evaluated in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Four separate dose escalation accelerated radiotherapy schedules have been completed in UK (CHART-ED, IDEAL-CRT, I-START and Isotoxic IMRT). This study will compare these schedules with a UK standard sequential chemoradiotherapy schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. As it would be impossible to test all schedules in a phase III study, the aim is to use a combined randomised phase II screening/'pick the winner' approach to identify the best schedule to take into a randomised phase III study against conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Suitable patients will have histologically/cytologically confirmed, stage III NSCLC and are able to undergo chemoradiotherapy treatment. The study will recruit 360 patients; 120 on the standard arm and 60 on each experimental arm. Patients will complete 2-4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy before being randomised to one of the radiotherapy schedules. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, with overall survival, time to local-regional failure, toxicity and cost-effectiveness as secondary objectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval (research ethics committee (REC) reference: 16/WS/0165) from the West of Scotland REC 1. The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47674500.

Protocol for the economic evaluation of a complex intervention to improve the mental health of maltreated infants and children in foster care in the UK (The BeST? services trial).

INTRODUCTION: Children who have experienced abuse and neglect are at increased risk of mental and physical health problems throughout life. This places an enormous burden on individuals, families and society in terms of health services, education, social care and judiciary sectors. Evidence suggests that early intervention can mitigate the negative consequences of child maltreatment, exerting long-term positive effects on the health of maltreated children entering foster care. However, evidence on cost-effectiveness of such complex interventions is limited. This protocol describes the first economic evaluation of its kind in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An economic evaluation alongside the Best Services Trial (BeST?) has been prospectively designed to identify, measure and value key resource and outcome impacts arising from the New Orleans intervention model (NIM) (an infant mental health service) compared with case management (CM) (enhanced social work services as usual). A within-trial economic evaluation and long-term model from a National Health Service/Personal Social Service and a broader societal perspective will be undertaken alongside the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-Public Health Research Unit (PHRU)-funded randomised multicentre BeST?. BeST? aims to evaluate NIM compared with CM for maltreated children entering foster care in a UK context. Collection of Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) and the recent mapping of PedsQL to EuroQol-5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) will facilitate the estimation of quality-adjusted life years specific to the infant population for a cost-utility analysis. Other effectiveness outcomes will be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-consequences analysis (CCA). A long-term economic model and multiple economic evaluation frameworks will provide decision-makers with a comprehensive, multiperspective guide regarding cost-effectiveness of NIM. The long-term population health economic model will be developed to synthesise trial data with routine linked data and key government sector parameters informed by literature. Methods guidance for population health economic evaluation will be adopted (lifetime horizon, 1.5% discount rate for costs and benefits, CCA framework, multisector perspective). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained by the West of Scotland Ethics Committee. Results of the main trial and economic evaluation will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal as well as published in the peer-reviewed NIHR journals library (Public Health Research Programme). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02653716; Pre-results.

Study protocol: quantitative fibronectin to help decision-making in women with symptoms of preterm labour (QUIDS) part 2, UK Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the QUIDS study is to develop a decision support tool for the management of women with symptoms and signs of preterm labour, based on a validated prognostic model using quantitative fetal fibronectin (fFN) concentration, in combination with clinical risk factors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will evaluate the Rapid fFN 10Q System (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) which quantifies fFN in a vaginal swab. In QUIDS part 2, we will perform a prospective cohort study in at least eight UK consultant-led maternity units, in women with symptoms of preterm labour at 22+0 to 34+6 weeks gestation to externally validate a prognostic model developed in QUIDS part 1. The effects of quantitative fFN on anxiety will be assessed, and acceptability of the test and prognostic model will be evaluated in a subgroup of women and clinicians (n=30). The sample size is 1600 women (with estimated 96-192 events of preterm delivery within 7 days of testing). Clinicians will be informed of the qualitative fFN result (positive/negative) but be blinded to quantitative fFN result. Research midwives will collect outcome data from the maternal and neonatal clinical records. The final validated prognostic model will be presented as a mobile or web-based application. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is funded by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology Assessment (HTA 14/32/01). It has been approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (16/WS/0068). VERSION: Protocol V.2, Date 1 November 2016. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 41598423andCPMS: 31277.

Effect of offering different levels of support and free nicotine replacement therapy via an English national telephone quitline: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of free nicotine replacement therapy or proactive telephone counselling in addition to standard smoking cessation support offered through a telephone quitline. DESIGN: Parallel group, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: National quitline, England. PARTICIPANTS: 2591 non-pregnant smokers aged 16 or more residing in England who called the quitline between February 2009 and February 2010 and agreed to set a quit date: 648 were each randomised to standard support, proactive support, or proactive support with nicotine replacement therapy, and 647 were randomised to standard support with nicotine replacement therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Two interventions were offered in addition to standard support: six weeks' nicotine replacement therapy, provided free, and proactive counselling sessions (repeat telephone calls from, and interaction with, cessation advisors). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self reported smoking cessation for six or more months after the quit date. The secondary outcome was cessation validated by exhaled carbon monoxide measured at six or more months. RESULTS: At six months, 17.7% (n = 229) of those offered nicotine replacement therapy reported smoking cessation compared with 20.1% (n = 261) not offered such therapy (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.04), and 18.2% (n = 236) offered proactive counselling reported smoking cessation compared with 19.6% (n = 254) offered standard support (0.91, 0.75 to 1.11). Data validated by carbon monoxide readings changed the findings for nicotine replacement therapy only, with smoking cessation validated in 6.6% (85/1295) of those offered nicotine replacement therapy compared with 9.4% (122/1296) not offered such therapy (0.67, 0.50 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Offering free nicotine replacement therapy or additional (proactive) counselling to standard helpline support had no additional effect on smoking cessation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00775944.