Search

Background: UK cancer deaths remain high; primary care is key for earlier cancer diagnosis as half of avoidable delays occur here. Improvement is possible through lower referral thresholds, better guideline adherence, and better safety-netting systems. Few interventions target whole practice teams. We developed a novel whole-practice team intervention to address this., Aim: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, complex behavioural intervention, 'ThinkCancer!', for assessment in a subsequent Phase III trial., Design & Setting: Pragmatic, superiority pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis in Welsh general practices., Method: Clinical outcome data were collected from practices (the unit of randomisation). Practice characteristics and cancer safety-netting systems were assessed. Individual practice staff completed evaluation and feedback forms and qualitative interviews. The intervention was adapted and refined., Results: Trial recruitment and workshop deliveries took place between March 2020 and May 2021. Trial progression criteria for recruitment, intervention fidelity, and routine data collection were met. Staff-level fidelity, retention, and individual level data collection processes were reviewed and amended. Interviews highlighted positive participant views on all aspects of the intervention. All practices set out to liberalise referral thresholds appropriately, implement guidelines, and address safety-netting plans in detail., Conclusion: 'ThinkCancer!' appears feasible and acceptable. The new iteration of the workshops was completed and the Phase III trial has been funded to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this novel professional behaviour change intervention. Delivery at scale to multiple practices will likely improve fidelity and reach., (Copyright © 2024, The Authors.)

Introduction: Evidence-based psychological treatments for people with personality disorder usually involve attending group-based sessions over many months. Low-intensity psychological interventions of less than 6 months duration have been developed, but their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are unclear., Methods and Analysis: This is a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, researcher-masked, superiority trial. Study participants will be aged 18 and over, have probable personality disorder and be treated by mental health staff in seven centres in England. We will exclude people who are: unwilling or unable to provide written informed consent, have a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder, or are already receiving psychological treatment for personality disorder or on a waiting list for such treatment. In the intervention group, participants will be offered up to 10 individual sessions of Structured Psychological Support. In the control group, participants will be offered treatment as usual plus a single session of personalised crisis planning. The primary outcome is social functioning measured over 12 months using total score on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Secondary outcomes include mental health, suicidal behaviour, health-related quality of life, patient-rated global improvement and satisfaction, and resource use and costs. The primary analysis will compare WSAS scores across the 12-month period using a general linear mixed model adjusting for baseline scores, allocation group and study centre on an intention-to-treat basis. In a parallel process evaluation, we will analyse qualitative data from interviews with study participants, clinical staff and researchers to examine mechanisms of impact and contextual factors., Ethics and Dissemination: The study complies with the Helsinki Declaration II and is approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID 315951). Study findings will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal; and disseminated at national and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13918289., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The prevalence of dementia is almost five times higher in people with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population. However, evidence-based treatments for this population are lacking, as most randomised controlled trials for dementia interventions have not included people with intellectual disabilities. Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) has a robust evidence base in the general dementia population, consistently showing benefits to cognition, quality of life and being cost-effective. We are conducting a mixed-methods feasibility trial of group CST for people with intellectual disabilities and dementia, to determine if a future definitive randomised controlled trial is feasible., Methods and Analysis: Fifty individuals with intellectual disabilities and dementia will be randomised to either the intervention arm (14 sessions of group CST plus treatment as usual) or the control arm (treatment as usual). Randomisation will occur after informed consent has been obtained and baseline assessments completed. Each arm will have 25 participants, with the intervention arm divided into five or more CST groups with three to five participants in each. The outcomes will be feasibility of recruitment, acceptability and adherence of the intervention, suitability of study outcome measures and feasibility of collecting resource use data. Quantitative and qualitative approaches, including semistructured interviews with group participants, carers and group facilitators, will be employed to assess these outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by Essex REC (Ref: 21/EE/027) and the HRA ethical approval process through the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS ID: 306 756). We plan to publish the results in peer-reviewed journals and conferences as well as provide feedback to funders, sponsors and study participants., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN88614460., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: UK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer., Aim: To explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care., Design & Setting: Feasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK., Method: From an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer!, Intervention: Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19., Results: The total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery., Conclusion: Data collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer!, Intervention: Results of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT)., (Copyright © 2023, The Authors.)

Purpose: The aim of the randomized trial, UKALL2003, was to adjust treatment intensity on the basis of minimal residual disease (MRD) stratification for children and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. We analyzed the 10-year randomized outcomes and the time for patients to be considered cured (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00222612)., Methods: A total of 3,113 patients were analyzed including 1,054 patients who underwent random assignment (521 MRD low-risk and 533 MRD high-risk patients). Time to cure was defined as the point at which the chance of relapse was < 1%. The median follow-up time was 10.98 (interquartile range, 9.19-13.02) years, and survival rates are quoted at 10 years., Results: In the low-risk group, the event-free survival was 91.7% (95% CI, 87.4 to 94.6) with one course of delayed intensification versus 93.7% (95% CI, 89.9 to 96.1) with two delayed intensifications (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.38 to 1.40; P = .3). In the high-risk group, the event-free survival was 82.1% (95% CI, 76.9 to 86.2) with standard therapy versus 87.1% (95% CI, 82.4 to 90.6) with augmented therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.06; P = .09). Cytogenetic high-risk patients treated on augmented therapy had a lower relapse risk (22.1%; 95% CI, 15.1 to 31.6) versus standard therapy (52.4%; 95% CI, 28.9 to 80.1; P = .016). The initial risk of relapse differed significantly by sex, age, MRD, and genetics, but the risk of relapse for all subgroups quickly coalesced at around 6 years after diagnosis., Conclusion: Long-term outcomes of the UKALL2003 trial confirm that low-risk patients can safely de-escalate therapy, while intensified therapy benefits patients with high-risk cytogenetics. Regardless of prognosis, the time to cure is similar across risk groups. This will facilitate communication to patients and families who pose the question "When am I/is my child cured?"

Introduction: In the UK, National Health Service (NHS) guidelines recommend that informal carers of people living with dementia should be offered training to help them develop care skills and manage their own physical and mental health. The WHO recommends access to affordable, proven, well-designed, online technologies for education, skills training and support for dementia carers. In response to these recommendations, this multisite randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the first study in the UK to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online support programme developed by the WHO called 'iSupport for dementia carers'., Methods and Analysis: 350 informal carers (age 18+ years) living in Britain who self-identify as experiencing stress and depression will be recruited. They will be randomised to receive 'iSupport', or standardised information about caring for someone with dementia (control-comparison). Data will be collected via videoconferencing (eg, Zoom) or telephone interview at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Intention-to-treat analysis will ascertain effectiveness in the primary outcomes (distress and depression) and combined cost, and quality-adjusted life-year data will be used to assess cost-effectiveness compared with usual care from a public sector and wider societal perspective. A mixed-methods process evaluation with a subgroup of carers in the intervention (~N=50) will explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing 'iSupport'. A non-randomised feasibility study will adapt 'iSupport' for young carers (n=38 participants, age 11-17 years)., Ethics and Dissemination: The research plan was scrutinised by National Institute for Health Research reviewers ahead of funding being awarded. Ethical approval was granted by Bangor University's School of Health and Medical Sciences Academic Ethics Committee, reference number 2021-16915. Dissemination plans include delivering events for stakeholders, social media, a project website, developing policy briefings, presenting at conferences and producing articles for open access publications., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN17420703., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Cognitive problems affect up to 70% of people with multiple sclerosis (MS), which can negatively impact mood, ability to work, and quality of life. Addressing cognitive problems is a top 10 research priority for people with MS. Our ongoing research has systematically developed a cognitive screening and management pathway (NEuRoMS) tailored for people with MS, involving a brief cognitive evaluation and rehabilitation intervention. The present study aims to assess the feasibility of delivering the pathway and will inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the intervention and eventually guide its clinical implementation., Methods: The feasibility study is in three parts. Part 1 involves an observational study of those who receive screening and support for cognitive problems, using routinely collected clinical data. Part 2 is a two-arm, parallel group, multicentre, feasibility RCT with a nested fidelity evaluation. This part will evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a definitive trial comparing the NEuRoMS intervention plus usual care to usual care only, amongst people with MS with mild cognitive problems (n = 60). In part 3, semi-structured interviews will be undertaken with participants from part 2 (n = 25), clinicians (n = 9), and intervention providers (n = 3) involved in delivering the NEuRoMS cognitive screening and management pathway. MS participants will be recruited from outpatient clinics at three UK National Health Service hospitals., Discussion: Timely screening and effective management of cognitive problems in MS are urgently needed due to the detrimental consequences of cognitive problems on people with MS, the healthcare system, and wider society. The NEuRoMS intervention is based on previous and extant literature and has been co-constructed with relevant stakeholders. If effective, the NEuRoMS pathway will facilitate timely identification and management of cognitive problems in people with MS., Trial Registration: ISRCTN11203922 . Prospectively registered on 09.02.2021., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Minimal residual disease (MRD) measured on end-of-induction bone marrow (BM) is the most important biomarker for guiding therapy in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Due to limited sensitivity of current approaches, peripheral blood (PB) is not a reliable source for identifying patients needing treatment changes. We sought to determine if high-throughput sequencing (HTS) (next-generation sequencing) of rearranged immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor genes can overcome this and be used to measure MRD in PB., Procedure: We employed a quantitative HTS approach to accurately measure MRD from one million cell equivalents of DNA from 17 PB samples collected at day 29 after induction therapy in patients with precursor B-cell ALL. We compared these results to the gold-standard real-time PCR result obtained from their paired BM samples, median follow-up 49 months., Results: With the increased sensitivity, detecting up to one abnormal cell in a million normal cells, we were able to detect MRD in the PB by HTS in all those patients requiring treatment intensification (MRD ≥ 0.005% in BM)., Conclusion: This is proof of principle that using the increased sensitivity of HTS, PB can be used to measure MRD and stratify children with ALL. The method is cost effective, rapid, accurate, and reproducible, with inherent advantages in children. Importantly, increasing the frequency testing by PB as opposed to intermittent BM sampling may allow extension of the dynamic range of MRD, giving a more complete picture of the kinetics of disease remission while improving relapse prediction and speed of detection., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: Decreases in future lung function are a hallmark of preterm birth, but studies for management of decreased lung function are limited., Objective: To determine whether 12 weeks of treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or in combination with long-acting β2 agonists (LABA) improves spirometry and exercise capacity in school-aged preterm-born children who had percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (%FEV1) less than or equal to 85% compared with inhaled placebo treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate ICS and ICS/LABA against placebo. Preterm-born children (age, 7-12 years; gestation ≤34 weeks at birth) who did not have clinically significant congenital, cardiopulmonary, or neurodevelopmental abnormalities underwent spirometry, exercise testing, and measurement of fractional exhaled nitric oxide before and after treatment. A total of 144 preterm-born children at the Children's Hospital for Wales in Cardiff, UK, were identified and enrolled between July 1, 2017, and August 31, 2019., Interventions: Each child was randomized to 1 of 3 cohorts: fluticasone propionate, 50 μg, with placebo; fluticasone propionate, 50 μg, with salmeterol, 25 μg; or placebo inhalers, all given as 2 puffs twice daily for 12 weeks. Children receiving preexisting ICS treatment underwent washout prior to randomization to ICS or ICS/LABA., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was between-group differences assessed by adjusted pretreatment and posttreatment differences of %FEV1 using analysis of covariance. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted., Results: Of 144 preterm-born children who were identified with %FEV1 less than or equal to 85%, 53 were randomized. Treatment allocation was 20 children receiving ICS (including 5 with prerandomization ICS), 19 children receiving ICS/LABA (including 4 with prerandomization ICS), and 14 children receiving placebo. The mean (SD) age of children was 10.8 (1.2) years, and 29 of the randomized children (55%) were female. The posttreatment %FEV1 was adjusted for sex, gestation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intrauterine growth restriction, pretreatment corticosteroid status, treatment group, and pretreatment values. Posttreatment adjusted means for %FEV1, using analysis of covariance, were 7.7% (95% CI, -0.27% to 15.72%; P = .16) higher in the ICS group and 14.1% (95% CI, 7.3% to 21.0%; P = .002) higher in the ICS/LABA group compared with the placebo group. Active treatment decreased the fractional exhaled nitric oxide and improved postexercise bronchodilator response but did not improve exercise capacity. One child developed cough when starting inhaler treatment; no other adverse events reported during the trial could be attributed to the inhaler treatment., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that combined ICS/LABA treatment is beneficial for prematurity-associated lung disease in children., Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-003712-20.