Search

Aim: To describe the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine whether treatment protocols monitoring daily CRP (C-reactive protein) or PCT (procalcitonin) safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised adult patients with sepsis., Design: Multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial., Setting: UK NHS hospitals., Target Population: Hospitalised critically ill adults who have been commenced on intravenous antibiotics for sepsis., Health Technology: Three protocols for guiding antibiotic discontinuation will be compared: (a) standard care; (b) standard care + daily CRP monitoring; (c) standard care + daily PCT monitoring. Standard care will be based on routine sepsis management and antibiotic stewardship. Measurement of outcomes and costs. Outcomes will be assessed to 28 days. The primary outcomes are total duration of antibiotics and safety outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include: escalation of care/re-admission; infection re-lapse/recurrence; antibiotic dose; length and level of critical care stay and length of hospital stay. Ninety-day all-cause mortality rates will also be collected. An assessment of cost effectiveness will be performed., Conclusion: In the setting of routine NHS care, if this trial finds that a treatment protocol based on monitoring CRP or PCT safely allows a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy, and is cost effective, then this has the potential to change clinical practice for critically ill patients with sepsis. Moreover, if a biomarker-guided protocol is not found to be effective, then it will be important to avoid its use in sepsis and prevent ineffective technology becoming widely adopted in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A.C.G. reports that outside of this work he has received speaker fees from Orion Corporation Orion Pharma and Amomed Pharma. He has consulted for Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Tenax Therapeutics, Baxter Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb and GSK, and received grant support from Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Tenax Therapeutics and HCA International with funds paid to his institution. Authors otherwise declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Intensive Care Society 2023.)

Background: Fractures are rare events and can occur because of a fall. Fracture counts are distinct from other count data in that these data are positively skewed, inflated by excess zero counts, and events can recur over time. Analytical methods used to assess fracture data and account for these characteristics are limited in the literature., Methods: Commonly used models for count data include Poisson regression, negative binomial regression, hurdle regression, and zero-inflated regression models. In this paper, we compare four alternative statistical models to fit fracture counts using data from a large UK based clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions in older people (Prevention of Falls Injury Trial; PreFIT)., Results: The values of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion, the goodness-of-fit statistics, were the lowest for negative binomial model. The likelihood ratio test of no dispersion in the data showed strong evidence of dispersion (chi-square = 225.68, p-value < 0.001). This indicates that the negative binomial model fits the data better compared to the Poisson regression model. We also compared the standard negative binomial regression and mixed effects negative binomial models. The LR test showed no gain in fitting the data using mixed effects negative binomial model (chi-square = 1.67, p-value = 0.098) compared to standard negative binomial model., Conclusions: The negative binomial regression model was the most appropriate and optimal fit model for fracture count analyses., Trial Registration: The PreFIT trial was registered as ISRCTN71002650., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest is approximately 18%, but for patients who require advanced airway management survival is lower. Those who do survive are often left with significant disability. Traditionally, resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients has included tracheal intubation, however insertion of a supraglottic airway has gained popularity as an alternative approach to advanced airway management. Evidence from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest suggests no significant differences in mortality or morbidity between these two approaches, but there is no randomised evidence for airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim of the AIRWAYS-3 randomised trial, described in this protocol paper, is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients will be allocated randomly to receive either a supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management. We will also estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. The primary outcome is functional status, measured using the modified Rankin Scale at hospital discharge or 30 days post-randomisation, whichever occurs first. AIRWAYS-3 presents ethical challenges regarding patient consent and data collection. These include the enrolment of unconscious patients without prior consent in a way that avoids methodological bias. Other complexities include the requirement to randomise patients efficiently during a time-critical cardiac arrest. Many of these challenges are encountered in other emergency care research; we discuss our approaches to addressing them. Trial registration: ISRCTN 17720457. Prospectively registered on 29/07/2022., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GDP is Editor-in-Chief, and JPN, KC and JS are Editors of the journal Resuscitation Plus., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Importance: Opioid use for chronic nonmalignant pain can be harmful., Objective: To test whether a multicomponent, group-based, self-management intervention reduced opioid use and improved pain-related disability compared with usual care., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicentered, randomized clinical trial of 608 adults taking strong opioids (buprenorphine, dipipanone, morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, papaveretum, pentazocine, pethidine, tapentadol, and tramadol) to treat chronic nonmalignant pain. The study was conducted in 191 primary care centers in England between May 17, 2017, and January 30, 2019. Final follow-up occurred March 18, 2020., Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to either usual care or 3-day-long group sessions that emphasized skill-based learning and education, supplemented by 1-on-1 support delivered by a nurse and lay person for 12 months., Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form 8a (PROMIS-PI-SF-8a) score (T-score range, 40.7-77; 77 indicates worst pain interference; minimal clinically important difference, 3.5) and the proportion of participants who discontinued opioids at 12 months, measured by self-report., Results: Of 608 participants randomized (mean age, 61 years; 362 female [60%]; median daily morphine equivalent dose, 46 mg [IQR, 25 to 79]), 440 (72%) completed 12-month follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in PROMIS-PI-SF-8a scores between the 2 groups at 12-month follow-up (-4.1 in the intervention and -3.17 in the usual care groups; between-group difference: mean difference, -0.52 [95% CI, -1.94 to 0.89]; P = .15). At 12 months, opioid discontinuation occurred in 65 of 225 participants (29%) in the intervention group and 15 of 208 participants (7%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 5.55 [95% CI, 2.80 to 10.99]; absolute difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 14.8% to 28.6%]; P < .001). Serious adverse events occurred in 8% (25/305) of the participants in the intervention group and 5% (16/303) of the participants in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (2% in the intervention group and 0% in the usual care group) and locomotor/musculoskeletal (2% in the intervention group and 1% in the usual care group). Four people (1%) in the intervention group received additional medical care for possible or probable symptoms of opioid withdrawal (shortness of breath, hot flushes, fever and pain, small intestinal bleed, and an overdose suicide attempt)., Conclusions and Relevance: In people with chronic pain due to nonmalignant causes, compared with usual care, a group-based educational intervention that included group and individual support and skill-based learning significantly reduced patient-reported use of opioids, but had no effect on perceived pain interference with daily life activities., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN49470934.

Background: Postal screening has not previously been validated as a method for identifying fall and fracture risk in community-dwelling populations. We examined prognostic performance of a postal risk screener used in the UK Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT; ISRCTN71002650), to predict any fall, recurrent falls, and fractures over 12 months. We tested whether adding variables would improve screener performance., Methods: Nine thousand eight hundred and eight community-dwelling participants, aged 70 years and older, and 63 general practices in the UK National Health Service (NHS) were included in a large, pragmatic cluster randomised trial comparing screen and treat fall prevention interventions. The short postal screener was sent to all participants in the trial intervention arms as an A4 sheet to be completed and returned to the GP (n = 6,580). The postal screener items were embedded in the baseline pre-randomisation postal questionnaire for all arms of the trial (n = 9,808). We assessed discrimination and calibration using area under the curve (AUC). We identified additional predictors using data from the control arm and applied these coefficients to internal validation models in the intervention arm participants. We used logistic regression to identify additional predictor variables., Findings: A total of 10,743 falls and 307 fractures were reported over 12 months. Over one third of participants 3,349/8,136 (41%) fell at least once over 12 month follow up. Response to the postal screener was high (5,779/6,580; 88%). Prediction models showed similar discriminatory ability in both control and intervention arms, with discrimination values for any fall AUC 0.67 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.68), and recurrent falls (AUC 0.71; 95% CI 0.69, 0.72) but poorer discrimination for fractures (AUC 0.60; 95% CI 0.56, 0.64). Additional predictor variables improved prediction of falls but had modest effect on fracture, where AUC rose to 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.74). Calibration slopes were very close to 1., Conclusion: A short fall risk postal screener was acceptable for use in primary care but fall prediction was limited, although consistent with other tools. Fracture and fall prediction were only partially reliant on fall risk although were improved with the additional variables., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Sepsis is characterised by a dysregulated immune response to infection, with exaggerated pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses. A predominant immunosuppressive profile affecting both innate and adaptive immune responses is associated with increased hospital-acquired infection and reduced infection-free survival. While hospital-acquired infection leads to additional antibiotic use, the role of the immunosuppressive phenotype in guiding complex decisions, such as those affecting antibiotic stewardship, is uncertain. This study is a mechanistic substudy embedded within a multicentre clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship. This mechanistic study aims to determine the effect of sepsis-associated immunosuppression on the trial outcome measures., Methods and Analysis: RISC-sepsis is a prospective, multicentre, exploratory, observational study embedded within the ADAPT-sepsis trial. A subgroup of 180 participants with antibiotics commenced for suspected sepsis, enrolled in the ADAPT-sepsis trial, will be recruited. Blood samples will be collected on alternate days until day 7. At each time point, blood will be collected for flow cytometric analysis into cell preservation tubes. Immunophenotyping will be performed at a central testing hub by flow cytometry. The primary outcome measures are monocyte human leucocyte antigen-DR; neutrophil CD88; programmed cell death-1 on monocytes, neutrophils and T lymphocytes and the percentage of regulatory T cells. Secondary outcome measures will link to trial outcomes from the ADAPT-sepsis trial including antibiotic days; occurrence of hospital-acquired infection and length of ICU-stay and hospital-stay., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted (IRAS 209815) and RISC-sepsis is registered with the ISRCTN (86837685). Study results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications, presentations at scientific meetings and via patient and public participation groups and social media., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DFMcA is NIHR/MRC EME programme director and has previously sat on NIHR HTA funding committees., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Large-for-gestational age (LGA) fetuses have an increased risk of shoulder dystocia. This can lead to adverse neonatal outcomes and death. Early induction of labour in women with a fetus suspected to be macrosomic may mitigate the risk of shoulder dystocia. The Big Baby Trial aims to find if induction of labour at 38 +0 -38 +4 weeks' gestation, in pregnancies with suspected LGA fetuses, reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia., Methods and Analysis: The Big Baby Trial is a multicentre, prospective, individually randomised controlled trial of induction of labour at 38 +0 to 38 +4 weeks' gestation vs standard care as per each hospital trust (median gestation of delivery 39 +4 ) among women whose fetuses have an estimated fetal weight >90th customised centile according to ultrasound scan at 35 +0 to 38 +0 weeks' gestation. There is a parallel cohort study for women who decline randomisation because they opt for induction, expectant management or caesarean section. Up to 4000 women will be recruited and randomised to induction of labour or to standard care. The primary outcome is the incidence of shoulder dystocia; assessed by an independent expert group, blind to treatment allocation, from delivery records. Secondary outcomes include birth trauma, fractures, haemorrhage, caesarean section rate and length of inpatient stay. The main trial is ongoing, following an internal pilot study. A qualitative reporting, health economic evaluation and parallel process evaluation are included., Ethics and Dissemination: The study received a favourable opinion from the South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Health Research Authority on 23/03/2018 (IRAS project ID 229163). Study results will be reported in the National Institute for Health Research journal library and published in an open access peer-reviewed journal. We will plan dissemination events for key stakeholders., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN18229892., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JG is the director of the Perinatal Institute, a not for profit organisation, limited by guarantee, and a qualified provider of maternity support services to the NHS. It derives its income from some of its products and services, including the award-winning GAP programme mentioned in this protocol, through which they have been able to implement training, e-learning and protocols in the majority of Trusts and Health Boards in the UK. GAP includes the standardised, RCOG endorsed customised GROW charts which will be used to identify large-for-gestational age as the entry point for this trial. MU is chief investigator or coinvestigator on multiple previous and current research grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Arthritis Research UK and is a coinvestigator on grants funded by the Australian NHMRC. He is an NIHR Senior Investigator. He has received travel expenses for speaking at conferences from the professional organisations hosting the conferences. He is a director and shareholder of Clinvivo Ltd http://www.clinvivo.com that provides electronic data collection for health services research. He is part of an academic partnership with Serco Ltd, funded by the European Social Fund, related to return to work initiatives. He is a coinvestigator on two NIHR funded studies receiving additional support from Stryker Ltd. He has accepted honoraria for teaching/lecturing from consortium for advanced research training in Africa. He was until March 2020 an editor of the NIHR journal series, and a member of the NIHR Journal Editors Group, for which he received a fee., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: The Prehospital Optimal Shock Energy for Defibrillation (POSED) study will assess the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled study of clinical effectiveness in UK ambulance services to identify the optimal shock energy for defibrillation., Methods: POSED is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open label, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility study. Defibrillators within a single UK ambulance service will be randomised in an equal ratio to deliver one of three shock strategies 120-150-200 J, 150-200-200 J, 200-200-200 J. Consecutive adults (≥18 years) presenting with out of hospital cardiac arrest requiring defibrillation will be eligible. The study plans to enrol 90 patients (30 in each group). Patients (or their relatives for non-survivors) will be informed about trial participation after the initial emergency has resolved. Survivors will be invited to consent to participate in follow-up (i.e., at 30 days or discharge).The primary feasibility outcome is the proportion of eligible patients who receive the randomised study intervention. Secondary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, adherence to allocated treatment and data completeness. Clinical outcomes will include Return of an Organised Rhythm (ROOR) at 2 minutes post-shock, refibrillation rate, Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) at hospital handover, survival and neurological outcome at 30 days ., Conclusion: The POSED study will assess the feasibility of a large-scale trial and explore opportunities to optimise the trial protocol. Trial registration: ISRCTN16327029., Competing Interests: HP reports research funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research. CDD, RL, FM, AC, MAS, PK, AD, DES report no conflicts of interest. GDP reports research funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research, British Heart Foundation and Resuscitation Council UK. He has volunteer roles with Resuscitation Council UK, European Resuscitation Council and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. He is an editor for the journals Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Aim: To determine the optimal first-shock energy level for biphasic defibrillation and whether fixed or escalating protocols for subsequent shocks are most effective., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, the Web of Science and national and international trial registry databases for papers published from database inception to January 2022. We reviewed reference lists of key papers to identify additional references. The population included adults sustaining non traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest subject to attempted defibrillation. Studies of internal or monophasic defibrillation and studies other than randomised controlled trials or prospective cohorts were excluded. Two reviewers assessed study relevance. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using the ROBINS-I tool, were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data underwent intention-to-treat analysis., Results: We identified no studies evaluating first shock energy. Only one study ( n  = 738) comparing fixed versus escalating energy met eligibility criteria: a prospective cohort analysis of a randomised controlled trial of manual versus mechanical CPR. High fixed (360 J) energy was compared with an escalating (200-200/300-360 J) strategy. Researchers found 27.5% (70/255) of patients in the escalating energy group and 27.61% (132/478) in the fixed high energy group survived to hospital discharge (unadjusted risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73, 1.23). Results were of very low certainty as the study was at serious risk of bias., Conclusion: This systematic review did not identify an optimal first-shock energy for biphasic defibrillation. We identified no survival advantage at 30 days when comparing 360 J fixed with 200 J escalating strategy., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: Upper limb problems are common after breast cancer treatment., Objectives: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured exercise programme compared with usual care on upper limb function, health-related outcomes and costs in women undergoing breast cancer surgery., Design: This was a two-arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative research, process evaluation and parallel economic analysis; the unit of randomisation was the individual (allocated ratio 1 : 1)., Setting: Breast cancer centres, secondary care., Participants: Women aged ≥ 18 years who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems. Women were screened to identify their risk status., Interventions: All participants received usual-care information leaflets. Those randomised to exercise were referred to physiotherapy for an early, structured exercise programme (three to six face-to-face appointments that included strengthening, physical activity and behavioural change strategies)., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was upper limb function at 12 months as assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were function (Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire subscales), pain, complications (e.g. wound-related complications, lymphoedema), health-related quality of life (e.g. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form questionnaire-12 items), physical activity and health service resource use. The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit gained from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group assignment, but data collectors were blinded., Results: Between 2016 and 2017, we randomised 392 participants from 17 breast cancer centres across England: 196 (50%) to the usual-care group and 196 (50%) to the exercise group. Ten participants (10/392; 3%) were withdrawn at randomisation and 32 (8%) did not provide complete baseline data. A total of 175 participants (89%) from each treatment group provided baseline data. Participants' mean age was 58.1 years (standard deviation 12.1 years; range 28-88 years). Most participants had undergone axillary node clearance surgery (327/392; 83%) and 317 (81%) had received radiotherapy. Uptake of the exercise treatment was high, with 181 out of 196 (92%) participants attending at least one physiotherapy appointment. Compliance with exercise was good: 143 out of 196 (73%) participants completed three or more physiotherapy sessions. At 12 months, 274 out of 392 (70%) participants returned questionnaires. Improvement in arm function was greater in the exercise group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 16.3 (standard deviation 17.6)] than in the usual-care group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 23.7 (standard deviation 22.9)] at 12 months for intention-to-treat (adjusted mean difference Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of -7.81, 95% confidence interval -12.44 to -3.17; p  = 0.001) and complier-average causal effect analyses (adjusted mean difference -8.74, 95% confidence interval -13.71 to -3.77; p  ≤ 0.001). At 12 months, pain scores were lower and physical health-related quality of life was higher in the exercise group than in the usual-care group (Short Form questionnaire-12 items, mean difference 4.39, 95% confidence interval 1.74 to 7.04; p  = 0.001). We found no differences in the rate of adverse events or lymphoedema over 12 months. The qualitative findings suggested that women found the exercise programme beneficial and enjoyable. Exercise accrued lower costs (-£387, 95% CI -£2491 to £1718) and generated more quality-adjusted life years (0.029, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.056) than usual care over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that exercise was more cost-effective and that the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Exercise was relatively cheap to implement (£129 per participant) and associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. Benefits may accrue beyond the end of the trial., Limitations: Postal follow-up was lower than estimated; however, the study was adequately powered. No serious adverse events directly related to the intervention were reported., Conclusions: This trial provided robust evidence that referral for early, supported exercise after breast cancer surgery improved shoulder function in those at risk of shoulder problems and was associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life., Future Work: Future work should focus on the implementation of exercise programmes in clinical practice for those at highest risk of shoulder problems., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN35358984., 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. 26, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective: To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery., Design: Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation., Setting: 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres., Participants: 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196)., Interventions: Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months., Main Outcome Measures: Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective., Results: Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale -0.68, -1.23 to -0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) -2.02, -3.11 to -0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average -£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval -£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care., Conclusions: The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme; JB received grants from the UK NIHR during the conduct of this study and is a member of the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit board; SL reports membership of the UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Additional Capacity Funding Board, HTA End of Life Care and Add-on Studies Board, HTA Prioritisation Group Board, and HTA Trauma Board; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Using straight-line distance to estimate the proximity of public-access Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) or volunteer first-responders to potential out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) does not reflect real-world travel distance. The difference between estimates may be an important consideration for bystanders and first-responders responding to OHCAs and may potentially impact patient outcome., Objectives: To explore how calculating real-world travel routes instead of using straight-line distance estimates might impact the community response to OHCA., Methods: We mapped 4355 OHCA (01/04/2016-31/03/2017) and 2677 AEDs in London (UK), and 1263 OHCA (18/06/2017-17/06/2018) and 4704 AEDs in East Midlands (UK) using ArcGIS mapping software. We determined the distance from OHCAs to the nearest AED using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We mapped locations of potential OHCAs (London: n = 9065, 20/09/2019-22/03/2020; East Midlands: n = 7637, 20/09/2019-17/03/2020) for which volunteer first-responders were alerted by the GoodSAM mobile-phone app, and calculated response distance using straight-line estimates and real-world travel routes. We created Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and calculated the Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine if travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert., Results: Real-world travel routes to the nearest AED were (median) 219 m longer (623 m vs 406 m) than straight-line estimates in London, and 211 m longer (568 m vs 357 m) in East Midlands. The identity of the nearest AED changed on 26% occasions in both areas when calculating real-world travel routes. GoodSAM responders' real-world travel routes were (median) 222 m longer (601 m vs 379 m) in London, and 291 m longer (814 m vs 523 m) in East Midlands. AUC statistics for both areas demonstrated that neither straight-line nor real-world travel distance predicted whether or not a responder accepted an alert., Conclusions: Calculating real-world travel routes increases the estimated travel distance and time for those responding to OHCAs. Calculating straight-line distance may overestimate the benefit of the community response to OHCA., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Background: The optimal airway management strategy for in-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown., Methods: An online survey and telephone interviews with anaesthetic and intensive care trainee doctors identified by the United Kingdom Research and Audit Federation of Trainees. Questions explored in-hospital cardiac arrest frequency, grade and specialty of those attending, proportion of patients receiving advanced airway management, airway strategies immediately available, and views on a randomised trial of airway management strategies during in-hospital cardiac arrest., Results: Completed surveys were received from 128 hospital sites (76% response rate). Adult in-hospital cardiac arrests were attended by anaesthesia staff at 40 sites (31%), intensive care staff at 37 sites (29%) and a combination of specialties at 51 sites (40%). The majority (123/128, 96%) of respondents reported immediate access to both tracheal intubation and supraglottic airways. A bag-mask technique was used 'very frequently' or 'frequently' during in-hospital cardiac arrest by 111/128 (87%) of respondents, followed by supraglottic airways (101/128, 79%) and tracheal intubation (69/128, 54%). The majority (60/100, 60%) of respondents estimated that ≤30% of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients undergo tracheal intubation, while 34 (34%) estimated this to be between 31% and 70%. Most respondents (102/128, 80%) would be 'likely' or 'very likely' to recruit future patients to a trial of alternative airway management strategies during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Interview data identified several barriers and facilitators to conducting research on airway management in in-hospital cardiac arrest., Conclusions: There is variation in airway management strategies for adult in-hospital cardiac arrest across the UK. Most respondents would be willing to take part in a randomised trial of airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest., (© The Intensive Care Society 2020.)

Background: Falls and fractures are a major problem., Objectives: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions., Design: Three-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel economic analysis. The unit of randomisation was the general practice., Setting: Primary care., Participants: People aged ≥ 70 years., Interventions: All practices posted an advice leaflet to each participant. Practices randomised to active intervention arms (exercise and multifactorial falls prevention) screened participants for falls risk using a postal questionnaire. Active treatments were delivered to participants at higher risk of falling., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was fracture rate over 18 months, captured from Hospital Episode Statistics, general practice records and self-report. Secondary outcomes were falls rate, health-related quality of life, mortality, frailty and health service resource use. Economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit., Results: Between 2011 and 2014, we randomised 63 general practices (9803 participants): 21 practices (3223 participants) to advice only, 21 practices (3279 participants) to exercise and 21 practices (3301 participants) to multifactorial falls prevention. In the active intervention arms, 5779 out of 6580 (87.8%) participants responded to the postal fall risk screener, of whom 2153 (37.3%) were classed as being at higher risk of falling and invited for treatment. The rate of intervention uptake was 65% (697 out of 1079) in the exercise arm and 71% (762 out of 1074) in the multifactorial falls prevention arm. Overall, 379 out of 9803 (3.9%) participants sustained a fracture. There was no difference in the fracture rate between the advice and exercise arms (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.59) or between the advice and multifactorial falls prevention arms (rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.71). There was no difference in falls rate over 18 months (exercise arm: rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.14; multifactorial falls prevention arm: rate ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.30). A lower rate of falls was observed in the exercise arm at 8 months (rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96), but not at other time points. There were 289 (2.9%) deaths, with no differences by treatment arm. There was no evidence of effects in prespecified subgroup comparisons, nor in nested intention-to-treat analyses that considered only those at higher risk of falling. Exercise provided the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years (1.120), followed by advice and multifactorial falls prevention, with 1.106 and 1.114 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively. NHS costs associated with exercise (£3720) were lower than the costs of advice (£3737) or of multifactorial falls prevention (£3941). Although incremental differences between treatment arms were small, exercise dominated advice, which in turn dominated multifactorial falls prevention. The incremental net monetary benefit of exercise relative to treatment valued at £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is modest, at £191, and for multifactorial falls prevention is £613. Exercise is the most cost-effective treatment. No serious adverse events were reported., Limitations: The rate of fractures was lower than anticipated., Conclusions: Screen-and-treat falls prevention strategies in primary care did not reduce fractures. Exercise resulted in a short-term reduction in falls and was cost-effective., Future Work: Exercise is the most promising intervention for primary care. Work is needed to ensure adequate uptake and sustained effects., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71002650., 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. 25, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes., Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use., Design: This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices., Setting: This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales., Participants: Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given., Interventions: Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation., Results: From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline ( n  = 4015) or to the placebo ( n  = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest., Limitations: The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome., Conclusions: Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS., Future Work: Further research is required to better understand patients' preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11., 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. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Aims: We recently reported early outcomes in patients enrolled in a randomised trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 (Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest) trial. The purpose of the present paper is to report long-term survival, quality of life, functional and cognitive outcomes at 3, 6 and 12-months., Methods: PARAMEDIC2 was a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Patients were randomised to either adrenaline or placebo. This paper reports results on the modified Rankin Scale scores at 6-months, survival at 6 and 12-months, as well as other cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes collected at 3 and 6 months (Two Simple Questions, the Mini Mental State Examination, the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline Evaluation for Cardiac Arrest, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist - Civilian Version, Short-Form 12-item Health Survey and the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L)., Results: 8014 patients were randomised with confirmed trial drug administration. At 6-months, 78 (2.0%) of the patients in the adrenaline group and 58 (1.5%) of patients in the placebo group had a favourable neurological outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.93, 1.97]). 117 (2.9%) patients were alive at 6-months in the adrenaline group compared with 86 (2.2%) in the placebo group (1.43 [1.05, 1.96], reducing to 107 (2.7%) and 80 (2.0%) respectively at 12-months (1.38 [1.00, 1.92]). Measures of 3 and 6-month cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes were reduced, but there was no strong evidence of differences between groups., Conclusion: Adrenaline improved survival through to 12-months follow-up. The study did not find evidence of improvements in favourable neurological outcomes. (ISCRTN 73485024)., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: In 2013, a single-centre study reported the safe use of esmolol in patients with septic shock and tachycardia who required vasopressor therapy for more than 24 hours. Although not powered to detect a change in mortality, marked improvements were seen in survival (adjusted HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; p<0.001). Beta blockers are one of the most studied groups of drugs but their effect in septic shock is poorly understood; proposed mechanisms include not only the modulation of cardiac function but also immunomodulation., Methods and Analysis: STRESS-L is a randomised, open-label, non-blinded clinical trial which is enrolling a total of 340 patients with septic shock as defined by Sepsis-3 consensus definition and a tachycardia (heart rate ≥95 beats per minute (bpm)) after vasopressor treatment of at least 24 hours. Standard randomisation (1:1 ratio) allocates patients to receive usual care (according to international standards) versus usual care and a continuous landiolol infusion to reduce the heart rate between 80 and 94 bpm. The primary endpoint is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score over 14 days from entry into the trial and while in intensive care unit. Results will inform current clinical practice guidelines., Ethics and Dissemination: This trial has clinical trial authorisation from the UK competent authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and has been approved by the East of England-Essex Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EE/0368).The results of the trial will be reported first to trial collaborators. The main report will be drafted by the trial coordinating team, and the final version will be agreed by the Trial Steering Committee before submission for publication, on behalf of the collaboration., Registration: The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) (Project Number: EME-14/150/85) and registered ISRCTN12600919 and EudraCT: 2017-001785-14., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TW reports grants from NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation for the funding of STRESS-L (Project Number: EME-14/150/85) and during the conduct of the study; personal fees and non-financial support from AOP Orphan, manufacturer of Landiolol, outside the submitted work. MS has received travel expenses from AOP Orphan for delivering lectures. MS reports grants and other from NewB, grants from DSTL, other from Amormed, other from Biotest, other from GE, other from Baxter, grants from Critical Pressure, grants from Apollo Therapeutics, other from Roche, other from Bayer, other from Shionogi, outside the submitted work. ACG reports receiving grants from the NIHR and the NIHR Research Professorship; non-financial support from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. DFM reports a grant from the NIHR EME programme for this study. Outside the submitted work, DFM reports personal fees from consultancy for GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Novartis and Eli Lilly. In addition, his institution has received funds from grants from the NIHR, Wellcome Trust, Innovate-UK and others. In addition, DFM has a patent issued to his institution for a treatment for ARDS. DFM is a director of the Research for the Intensive Care Society and NIHR EME programme director. GP reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study; and he is a director of the Research for the Intensive Care Society. All other authors declare they have no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Good quality basic life support (BLS) is associated with improved outcome from cardiac arrest. Chest compression fraction (CCF) is a BLS quality indicator, which may be influenced by the type of airway used. We aimed to assess CCF according to the airway strategy in the PARAMEDIC2 study: no advanced airway, supraglottic airway (SGA), tracheal intubation, or a combination of the two. Our hypothesis was that tracheal intubation was associated with a decrease in the CCF compared with alternative airway management strategies., Methods: PARAMEDIC2 was a multicentre double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of adrenaline vs placebo in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Data showing compression rate and ratio from patients recruited by London Ambulance Service (LAS) as part of this study was collated and analysed according to the advanced airway used during the resuscitation attempt., Results: CPR process data were available from 286/ 2058 (13.9%) of the total patients recruited by LAS. The mean compression rate for the first 5 min of data recording was the same in all groups (P = 0.272) and ranged from 104.2 (95% CI of mean: 100.5, 107.8) min -1 to 108.0 (95% CI of mean: 105.1, 108.3) min -1 . The mean compression fraction was also similar across all groups (P = 0.159) and ranged between 74.7% and 78.4%. There was no difference in the compression rates and fractions across the airway management groups, regardless of the duration of CPR., Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the compression fraction associated with the airway management strategy., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Mechanical chest compression devices deliver high-quality chest compressions. Early data suggests that mechanical devices may be superior to manual chest compressions in adults following an in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. To determine the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness trial in this population, we undertook a feasibility randomised controlled trial., Methods: We undertook a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT). Adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients that were in a non-shockable rhythm were randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive mechanical CPR (Jolfe AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or ongoing manual CPR. Recruitment was led by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome was the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Patients were enrolled under a model of deferred consent. We report data using descriptive statistics, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals., Results: Over a two-year period, we recruited 127 patients across five UK hospitals. We recruited 55.2% (95% CI 48.5%-61.8%) of eligible study participants in site operational recruitment hours. Most participants were male (n = 76, 59.8%) with a mean age of 72 (95% CI: 69.9-74.9) years. Median arrest duration was 18 (IQR 13-29) minutes. In patients randomised to mech-CPR, median time from CPR start to device deployment was 11 (IQR 7-15) minutes. ROSC was achieved in 27.6% (n = 35) participants and 4.7% (n = 6) were alive at 30-days., Conclusion: COMPRESS-RCT identified important factors that preclude progression to an effectiveness trial of mechanical CPR in the hospital setting in the UK. Findings will inform the design of future in-hospital intra-arrest intervention trials. ISRCTN38139840, date of registration 9th January 2017., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Optimising techniques to wean patients from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains a key goal of intensive care practice. The use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as a weaning strategy (transitioning patients who are difficult to wean to early NIV) may reduce mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay., Objectives: Our objectives were to determine the cost effectiveness of protocolised weaning, including early extubation onto NIV, compared with weaning without NIV in a UK National Health Service setting., Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to either protocol-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation or ongoing IMV with daily spontaneous breathing trials. The primary efficacy outcome was time to liberation from ventilation. Bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) provided estimates of the incremental cost per QALY and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) overall and for subgroups [presence/absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and operative status]. Long-term cost effectiveness was determined through extrapolation of survival curves using flexible parametric modelling., Results: NIV was associated with a mean INMB of £620 ($US885) (cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY) with a corresponding probability of 58% that NIV is cost effective. The probability that NIV is cost effective was higher for those with COPD (84%). NIV was cost effective over 5 years, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4618 ($US6594 per QALY gained)., Conclusions: The probability of NIV being cost effective relative to weaning without NIV ranged between 57 and 59% overall and between 82 and 87% for the COPD subgroup.

Background: Community screening and therapeutic prevention strategies may reduce the incidence of falls in older people. The effects of these measures on the incidence of fractures, the use of health resources, and health-related quality of life are unknown., Methods: In a pragmatic, three-group, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, we estimated the effect of advice sent by mail, risk screening for falls, and targeted interventions (multifactorial fall prevention or exercise for people at increased risk for falls) as compared with advice by mail only. The primary outcome was the rate of fractures per 100 person-years over 18 months. Secondary outcomes were falls, health-related quality of life, frailty, and a parallel economic evaluation., Results: We randomly selected 9803 persons 70 years of age or older from 63 general practices across England: 3223 were assigned to advice by mail alone, 3279 to falls-risk screening and targeted exercise in addition to advice by mail, and 3301 to falls-risk screening and targeted multifactorial fall prevention in addition to advice by mail. A falls-risk screening questionnaire was sent to persons assigned to the exercise and multifactorial fall-prevention groups. Completed screening questionnaires were returned by 2925 of the 3279 participants (89%) in the exercise group and by 2854 of the 3301 participants (87%) in the multifactorial fall-prevention group. Of the 5779 participants from both these groups who returned questionnaires, 2153 (37%) were considered to be at increased risk for falls and were invited to receive the intervention. Fracture data were available for 9802 of the 9803 participants. Screening and targeted intervention did not result in lower fracture rates; the rate ratio for fracture with exercise as compared with advice by mail was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.59), and the rate ratio with multifactorial fall prevention as compared with advice by mail was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.71). The exercise strategy was associated with small gains in health-related quality of life and the lowest overall costs. There were three adverse events (one episode of angina, one fall during a multifactorial fall-prevention assessment, and one hip fracture) during the trial period., Conclusions: Advice by mail, screening for fall risk, and a targeted exercise or multifactorial intervention to prevent falls did not result in fewer fractures than advice by mail alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN71002650.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Aim: To assess and evaluate patient safety incidents and in particular, medication errors, during a large multi-center pre-hospital trial of emergency therapy (PARAMEDIC2), in order to inform and improve future pre-hospital medicines trials., Methods: The PARAMEDIC2 trial was undertaken across five NHS Ambulance Services in England and Wales with randomisation between December 2014 and October 2017. Patients with an out -of-hospital cardiac arrest unresponsive to initial resuscitation were randomly assigned to 1 mg intravenous adrenaline or matching placebo. Records were reviewed to identify trial medication errors involving documentation and/or clinical protocol errors occurring in trial participants. Causes of medication errors, including root cause analysis where available, were reviewed to identify patterns and themes contributing to these errors., Results: Eight thousand sixteen patients were enrolled, of whom 4902 received trial medication. A total of 331 patient safety incidents was reported, involving 295 patients, representing an overall rate of 3.6% of these, 166 (50.2%) were documentation errors while 165 (49.8%) were clinical protocol/medication errors. An overall rate of 0-4.5% was reported across all five ambulance services, with a mean of 2.0%. These errors had no impact on patient care or the trial and were all resolved CONCLUSION: The overall medication error rate of 1.8% primarily consisted of administration of open-label adrenaline and confusion with trial medication packs. A similar number of patients had documentation errors. This study is the first to provide data on patient safety incidents relating to medication errors encountered during a pre-hospital trial of emergency medication administration and will provide supporting data for planning future trials in this area.

Background: Supervised cardio-pulmonary rehabilitation may be safe and beneficial for people with pulmonary hypertension (PH) in groups 1 (pulmonary arterial hypertension) and 4 (chronic thromboembolic disease), particularly as a hospital in-patient. It has not been tested in the most common PH groups; 2 (left heart disease), 3 (lung disease), or 5 (other disorders). Further it has not been evaluated in the UK National Health Service (NHS) out-patient setting, or with long-term follow-up. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention with psychosocial support compared to best practice usual care for people with PH in the community/outpatient setting., Methods: This multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm RCT with embedded process evaluation aims to recruit 352 clinically stable adults with PH (groups 1-5) and WHO functional class II-IV. Participants will be randomised to either the Supervised Pulmonary Hypertension Exercise Rehabilitation (SPHERe) intervention or control. The SPHERe intervention consists of 1) individual assessment and familiarisation sessions; 2) 8-week, twice-weekly, supervised out-patient exercise training; 3) psychosocial/motivational support and education; 4) guided home exercise plan. The control intervention consists of best practice usual care with a single one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on physical activity. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4 months (post-intervention) and 12 months by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is the incremental shuttle walk test at 4 months. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (HRQoL), time to clinical worsening and health and social care use. A purposive sample of participants (n = 20 intervention and n = 20 control) and practitioners (n = 20) will be interviewed to explore experiences of the trial, outcomes and interventions., Discussion: The SPHERe study is the first multi-centre clinical RCT to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention compared to usual care, delivered in the UK NHS, for people in all PH groups. Results will inform clinicians and commissioners as to whether or not supervised exercise rehabilitation is effective and should be routinely provided for people with PH., Trial Registration: ISRCTN no. 10608766, prospectively registered on 18th March 2019.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of the intravenous (IV) and intraosseous (IO) routes for drug administration in adults with a cardiac arrest enrolled in the Pre-Hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC2) randomised, controlled trial., Methods: Patients were recruited from five National Health Service Ambulance Services in England and Wales from December 2014 through October 2017. Patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were unresponsive to initial resuscitation attempts were randomly assigned to 1 mg adrenaline or matching placebo. Intravascular access was established as soon as possible, and IO access was considered if IV access was not possible after two attempts., Results: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 3631 received adrenaline and 3686 received placebo. Amongst these, 1116 (30.1%) and 1121 (30.4%) received the study drug via the IO route. The odds ratios were similar in the IV and IO groups for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at hospital handover [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.07 (95% CI 3.42-4.85) and (aOR 3.98 (95% CI 2.86-5.53), P value for interaction 0.90]; survival to 30 days [aOR 1.67 (1.18-2.35) versus 0.9 (0.4-2.05), P = 0.18]; and favourable neurological outcome [aOR 1.39 (0.93-2.06) versus 0.62 (0.23-1.67), P = 0.14]., Conclusion: There was no significant difference in treatment effect (adrenaline versus placebo) on ROSC at hospital handover between drugs administered by the intraosseous route or by the intravenous route. We could not detect any difference in the treatment effect between the IV and IO routes on the longer term outcomes of 30-day survival or favourable neurological outcome at discharge (ISRCTN73485024).

Purpose: To examine the time to drug administration in patients with a witnessed cardiac arrest enrolled in the Pre-Hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC2) randomised controlled trial., Methods: The PARAMEDIC2 trial was undertaken across 5 NHS ambulance services in England and Wales with randomisation between December 2014 and October 2017. Patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were unresponsive to initial resuscitation attempts were randomly assigned to 1 mg intravenous adrenaline or matching placebo according to treatment packs that were identical apart from treatment number. Participants and study staff were masked to treatment allocation., Results: 8016 patients were enrolled, 4902 sustained a witnessed cardiac arrest of whom 2437 received placebo and 2465 received adrenaline. The odds of return of spontaneous circulation decreased in both groups over time but at a greater rate in the placebo arm odds ratio (OR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.95) compared with the adrenaline arm OR 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97); interaction OR: 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p = 0.005. By contrast, although the rate of survival and favourable neurological outcome decreased as time to treatment increased, the rates did not differ between the adrenaline and placebo groups., Conclusion: The rate of return of spontaneous circulation, survival and favourable neurological outcomes decrease over time. As time to drug treatment increases, adrenaline increases the chances of return of spontaneous circulation. Longer term outcomes were not affected by the time to adrenaline administration. (ISRCTN73485024).

Background: The aim was to estimate the prevalence of frailty and relative contribution of physical/balance, nutritive, cognitive and sensory frailty to important adverse health states (falls, physical activity levels, outdoor mobility, problems in self-care or usual activities, and lack of energy or accomplishment) in an English cohort by age and sex., Methods: Analysis of baseline data from a cohort of 9803 community-dwelling participants in a clinical trial. The sample was drawn from a random selection of all people aged 70 or more registered with 63 general practices across England. Data were collected by postal questionnaire. Frailty was measured with the Strawbridge questionnaire. We used cross sectional, multivariate logistic regression to estimate the association between frailty domains and known correlates and adjusted for age. Some models were stratified by sex., Results: Mean age of participants was 78 years (sd 5.7), range 70 to 101 and 47.5% (4653/9803) were men. The prevalence of overall frailty was 20.7% (2005/9671) and there was no difference in prevalence by sex (Odds Ratio 0.98; 95% Confidence Interval 0.89 to 1.08). Sensory frailty was the most common and this was reported by more men (1823/4586) than women (1469/5056; Odds Ratio for sensory frailty 0.62, 95% Confidence Interval 0.57 to 0.68). Men were less likely than women to have physical or nutritive frailty. Physical frailty had the strongest independent associations with adverse health states. However, sensory frailty was independently associated with falls, less frequent walking, problems in self-care and usual activities, lack of energy and accomplishment., Conclusions: Physical frailty was more strongly associated with adverse health states, but sensory frailty was much more common. The health gain from intervention for sensory frailty in England is likely to be substantial, particularly for older men. Sensory frailty should be explored further as an important target of intervention to improve health outcomes for older people both at clinical and population level., Trial Registration: ISRCTN71002650.

Background: Phase III trials often require large sample sizes, leading to high costs and delays in clinical decision-making. Group sequential designs can improve trial efficiency by allowing for early stopping for efficacy and/or futility and thus may decrease the sample size, trial duration and associated costs. Bayesian approaches may offer additional benefits by incorporating previous information into the analyses and using decision criteria that are more practically relevant than those used in frequentist approaches. Frequentist group sequential designs have often been used for phase III studies, but the use of Bayesian group sequential designs is less common. The aim of this work was to explore how Bayesian group sequential designs could be constructed for phase III trials conducted in emergency medicine., Methods: The PARAMEDIC2 trial was a phase III randomised controlled trial that compared the use of adrenaline to placebo in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients on 30-day survival rates. It used a frequentist group sequential design to allow early stopping for efficacy or harm. We constructed several alternative Bayesian group sequential designs and studied their operating characteristics via simulation. We then virtually re-executed the trial by applying the Bayesian designs to the PARAMEDIC2 data to demonstrate what might have happened if these designs had been used in practice., Results: We produced three alternative Bayesian group sequential designs, each of which had greater than 90% power to detect the target treatment effect. A Bayesian design which performed interim analyses every 500 patients recruited produced the lowest average sample size. Using the alternative designs, the PARAMEDIC2 trial could have declared adrenaline superior for 30-day survival with approximately 1500 fewer patients., Conclusions: Using the PARAMEDIC2 trial as a case study, we demonstrated how Bayesian group sequential designs can be constructed for phase III emergency medicine trials. The Bayesian framework enabled us to obtain efficient designs using decision criteria based on the probability of benefit or harm. It also enabled us to incorporate information from previous studies on the treatment effect via the prior distributions. We recommend the wider use of Bayesian approaches in phase III clinical trials., Trial Registration: PARAMEDIC2 Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN73485024. Registered 13 March 2014, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN73485024.

Introduction: Previous research suggests there may be differences in the effects of adrenaline related to the initial cardiac arrest rhythm. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of adrenaline compared with placebo according to whether the initial cardiac arrest rhythm was shockable or non-shockable., Methods: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival and neurological outcomes according to the initial arrest rhythm were compared amongst patients enrolled in the PARAMEDIC-2 randomised, placebo controlled trial. The results of the PARAMEDIC-2 and PACA out of hospital cardiac arrest trials were combined and meta-analysed., Results: The initial rhythm was known for 3929 (98.2%) in the placebo arm and 3919 (97.6%) in the adrenaline arm. The effect on the rate of ROSC of adrenaline relative to placebo was greater in patients with non-shockable cardiac rhythms (1002/3003 (33.4%) versus 222/3005 (7.4%), adjusted OR: 6.5, (95% CI 5.6-7.6)) compared with shockable rhythms 349/716 (48.7%) versus (208/702 (29.6%), adjusted OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 1.9-2.9)). The adjusted odds ratio for survival at discharge for non-shockable rhythms was 2.5 (1.3, 4.8) and 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) for shockable rhythms (P value for interaction 0.065) and 1.8 (0.8-4.1) and 1.1 (0.8-1.6) respectively for neurological outcome at discharge (P value for interaction 0.295). Meta-analysis found similar results., Conclusion: Relative to placebo, the effects of adrenaline ROSC are greater for patients with an initially non-shockable rhythm than those with a shockable rhythms. Similar patterns are observed for longer term survival outcomes and favourable neurological outcomes, although the differences in effects are less pronounced. ISRCTN73485024., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Previous studies suggest that physical exercise could slow dementia progression. However, evidence for the cost effectiveness of structured exercise is conflicting and based on small trials., Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a tailored, structured, moderate- to high-intensity exercise programme versus usual care in people with mild to moderate dementia., Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective, based on data from a large randomised controlled trial. The primary clinical outcome was the participant reported ADAS-Cog (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale) at 12 months. Costs (£; 2014-2015 prices) were collected prospectively over a 12-month follow-up period. A bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, was conducted with the view to estimating the incremental cost per QALY gained and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) associated with the exercise programme plus usual care versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the impact of uncertainty surrounding aspects of the economic evaluation, and pre-specified subgroup analyses explored heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness results., Results: Participants (n = 494) were randomised to exercise plus usual care or usual care only. By 12 months the mean ADAS-Cog score had worsened slightly to 25.2 (standard deviation [SD] 12.3) in the exercise arm and 23.8 (SD 10.4) in the usual care: difference - 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.6 to - 0.2 (p = 0.03). The mean (standard error [SE]) costs over 12 months for experimental versus control was £5945 (US$7856) versus £4597 (US$6574), respectively; (difference: £1347 [$1926]; p = 0.0426). Mean (SE) QALY estimates were 0.787 (0.012) versus 0.826 (0.019), respectively (p = 0.090). The probability that the exercise programme is cost effective was < 1% across cost-effectiveness thresholds. INMBs ranged between -£2601 (US$3719) and £2158 (US$3086) at cost-effectiveness thresholds between £15,000 (US$21,450) and £30,000 (US$42,900) per QALY. The cost-effectiveness results remained robust to several sensitivity and subgroup analyses., Conclusions: Building on the clinical results of the trial, which showed that the structured exercise programme evaluated does not slow cognitive impairment in people with mild to moderate dementia, this economic evaluation shows that the programme is not cost effective.

Background: Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this feasibility trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting an effectiveness trial in this patient population., Methods: COMPRESS-RCT is a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness to compare the effect of mechanical chest compressions with manual chest compressions on 30-day survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Over approximately two years, 330 adult patients who sustain an in-hospital cardiac arrest and are in a non-shockable rhythm will be randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive ongoing treatment with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2/3, Jolife AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or continued manual chest compressions. It is intended that recruitment will occur on a 24/7 basis by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome is the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Participants will be enrolled using a model of deferred consent, with consent for follow-up sought from patients or their consultee in those that survive the cardiac arrest event. The trial will have an embedded qualitative study, in which we will conduct semi-structured interviews with hospital staff to explore facilitators and barriers to study recruitment., Discussion: The findings of COMPRESS-RCT will provide important information about the deliverability of an effectiveness trial to evaluate the effect on 30-day mortality of routine use of mechanical chest compression devices in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients., Trial Registration: ISRCTN38139840 , date of registration 9th January 2017.

Background: Concern about the use of epinephrine as a treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation to call for a placebo-controlled trial to determine whether the use of epinephrine is safe and effective in such patients., Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial involving 8014 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United Kingdom, paramedics at five National Health Service ambulance services administered either parenteral epinephrine (4015 patients) or saline placebo (3999 patients), along with standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of survival at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included the rate of survival until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome, as indicated by a score of 3 or less on the modified Rankin scale (which ranges from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death])., Results: At 30 days, 130 patients (3.2%) in the epinephrine group and 94 (2.4%) in the placebo group were alive (unadjusted odds ratio for survival, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.82; P=0.02). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome (87 of 4007 patients [2.2%] vs. 74 of 3994 patients [1.9%]; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.61). At the time of hospital discharge, severe neurologic impairment (a score of 4 or 5 on the modified Rankin scale) had occurred in more of the survivors in the epinephrine group than in the placebo group (39 of 126 patients [31.0%] vs. 16 of 90 patients [17.8%])., Conclusions: In adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher rate of 30-day survival than the use of placebo, but there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of a favorable neurologic outcome because more survivors had severe neurologic impairment in the epinephrine group. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN73485024 .).

Background: The feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSEs) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is uncertain., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre trial of SSE treatment for patients with AIS, in comparison with standard care, and to refine elements of the study design. The objectives were to (1) update a systematic review of controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SSE in AIS; (2) survey UK orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists to determine current practice, patient populations and equipoise; (3) randomise 50 adolescents to a feasibility trial of either usual care or SSE interventions across a range of sites; (4) develop, document and assess acceptability and adherence of interventions; (5) assess and describe training requirements of physiotherapists; and (6) gain user input in all relevant stages of treatment and protocol design., Design: Multicomponent feasibility study including UK clinician survey, systematic literature review and a randomised feasibility trial., Setting: The randomised feasibility study involved four secondary care NHS trusts providing specialist care for patients with AIS., Participants: The randomised feasibility study recruited people aged 10-16 years with mild AIS (Cobb angle of < 50°)., Interventions: The randomised study allocated participants to standard practice of advice and education or a physiotherapy SSE programme supported by a home exercise plan. Our choice of intervention was informed by a systematic review of exercise interventions for AIS., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome was feasibility of recruitment to the randomised study. Other elements were to inform choice of outcomes for a definitive trial and included curve severity, quality of life, requirement for surgery/brace, adverse events, psychological symptoms, costs and health utilities., Results: A UK survey of orthopaedic consultants and physiotherapists indicated a wide variation in current provision of exercise therapy through physiotherapy services. It also found that clinicians from at least 15 centres would be willing to have their patients involved in a full study. A systematic review update found five new studies that were generally of low quality but showed some promise of effectiveness of SSE. The randomised study recruited 58 patients from four NHS trusts over 11 months and exceeded the pre-specified target recruitment rate of 1.4 participants per centre per month, with acceptable 6-month follow-up (currently 73%). Adherence to treatment was variable (56% of participants completed treatment offered). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be highly acceptable. We learnt important lessons from patient and public involvement during the study in terms of study and intervention presentation, as well as practical elements such as scheduling of intervention sessions., Conclusions: A definitive RCT evaluating clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SSE for idiopathic scoliosis is warranted and feasible. Such a RCT is a priority for future work in the area. There is a sufficiently large patient base, combined with willingness to be randomised within specialist UK centres. Interventions developed during the feasibility study were acceptable to patients, families and physiotherapists and can be given within the affordability envelope of current levels of physiotherapy commissioning., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90480705., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942., Findings: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group., Interpretation: We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival., Funding: National Institute for Health Research HTA - 07/37/69., (Copyright © 2015 Perkins et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require artificial ventilation but this treatment may produce secondary lung damage. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this damage., Objectives: To determine the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of HFOV in patients with ARDS compared with standard mechanical ventilation., Design: A parallel, randomised, unblinded clinical trial., Setting: UK intensive care units., Participants: Mechanically ventilated patients with a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (P : F) ratio of 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days at recruitment., Interventions: Treatment arm HFOV using a Novalung R100(®) ventilator (Metran Co. Ltd, Saitama, Japan) ventilator until the start of weaning. Control arm Conventional mechanical ventilation using the devices available in the participating centres., Main Outcome Measures: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation. The primary health economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results: One hundred and sixty-six of 398 patients (41.7%) randomised to the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) randomised to the conventional mechanical ventilation group died within 30 days of randomisation (p = 0.85), for an absolute difference of 0.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.1% to 7.5%]. After adjustment for study centre, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and the initial P : F ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional ventilation group was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.40; p = 0.87 logistic regression). Survival analysis showed no difference in the probability of survival up to 12 months after randomisation. The average QALY at 1 year in the HFOV group was 0.302 compared to 0.246. This gives an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the cost to society per QALY of £88,790 and an ICER for the cost to the NHS per QALY of £ 78,260., Conclusions: The use of HFOV had no effect on 30-day mortality in adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS and no economic advantage. We suggest that further research into avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury should concentrate on ventilatory strategies other than HFOV., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10416500.

Objective: Follow-up data were collected using postal questionnaires and if participants did not respond, then data was collected using telephone interviews. The objectives of this study were to examine, for the two methods, how respondents differed in characteristics and whether the observed treatment difference varied., Study Design and Setting: A large clinical trial of lower back pain., Results: About 60% (98/163) of the nonresponders to postal questionnaire provided data by telephone, which increased the overall response rate by 14% (from 71% to 85%). A consistent treatment difference was found across the methods for the outcome measures at 12 months, implying that the observed treatment effect had not been modified. There were some differences between the participants: responders of postal questionnaire were older, likely to be female, white (ethnic origin), not working, with less disability of back pain, compared with those who responded by a telephone interview. At 12 months, there was greater improvement in back pain, disability, and general health for those who responded by postal questionnaires., Conclusion: Researchers should consider the use of more than one method of collecting data as this increases response rate, participant representativeness, and enhances precision of effect estimates., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low-back pain is a common and costly problem. We estimated the effectiveness of a group cognitive behavioural intervention in addition to best practice advice in people with low-back pain in primary care., Methods: In this pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with parallel cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in England, 701 adults with troublesome subacute or chronic low-back pain were recruited from 56 general practices and received an active management advisory consultation. Participants were randomly assigned by computer-generated block randomisation to receive an additional assessment and up to six sessions of a group cognitive behavioural intervention (n=468) or no further intervention (control; n=233). Primary outcomes were the change from baseline in Roland Morris disability questionnaire and modified Von Korff scores at 12 months. Assessment of outcomes was blinded and followed the intention-to-treat principle, including all randomised participants who provided follow-up data. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54717854., Findings: 399 (85%) participants in the cognitive behavioural intervention group and 199 (85%) participants in the control group were included in the primary analysis at 12 months. The most frequent reason for participant withdrawal was unwillingness to complete questionnaires. At 12 months, mean change from baseline in the Roland Morris questionnaire score was 1.1 points (95% CI 0.39-1.72) in the control group and 2.4 points (1.89-2.84) in the cognitive behavioural intervention group (difference between groups 1.3 points, 0.56-2.06; p=0.0008). The modified Von Korff disability score changed by 5.4% (1.99-8.90) and 13.8% (11.39-16.28), respectively (difference between groups 8.4%, 4.47-12.32; p<0.0001). The modified Von Korff pain score changed by 6.4% (3.14-9.66) and 13.4% (10.77-15.96), respectively (difference between groups 7.0%, 3.12-10.81; p<0.0001). The additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from cognitive behavioural intervention was 0.099; the incremental cost per QALY was 1786 pound sterling, and the probability of cost-effectiveness was greater than 90% at a threshold of 3000 pound sterling per QALY. There were no serious adverse events attributable to either treatment., Interpretation: Over 1 year, the cognitive behavioural intervention had a sustained effect on troublesome subacute and chronic low-back pain at a low cost to the health-care provider., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the measurement properties of the EuroQoL EQ-5D and two condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures--the Symptom Severity Index (SSI) and the Urinary Incontinence-Specific Quality of Life instrument (I-QoL)--in women with urinary incontinence., Methods: A questionnaire comprising all instruments was completed by women taking part in a clinical trial of physiotherapy for urinary incontinence. Follow-up questionnaires were at 6 weeks and 5 months. Data quality, internal consistency reliability, validity and responsiveness were assessed., Results: One hundred and seventy-four patients taking part in the clinical trial completed the questionnaire. Instruments had low levels of missing data. The EQ-5D had a large ceiling effect and poor responsiveness. The SSI had poor validity and responsiveness. The I-QoL had levels of reliability that supported application in group assessment, and in some cases, individual assessment, and good evidence of validity. The I-QoL was the most responsive instrument at both 6 weeks and 5 months., Conclusion: The I-QoL was the best performing instrument and is recommended as a continence-specific measure of quality of life in a clinical trial setting. The SSI and EQ-5D are not recommended. Alternative generic instruments, which support economic evaluation, require further evaluation in trials of female urinary incontinence.