Search

BackgroundRelapse in schizophrenia is a major cause of distress and disability and is predicted by changes in symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and suspiciousness (early warning signs [EWSs]). These can be used as the basis for timely interventions to prevent relapse. However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the implementation of EWS interventions. ObjectiveThis study was designed to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) against treatment as usual (TAU). Our primary outcomes are establishing parameters of feasibility, acceptability, usability, safety, and outcome signals of a digital health intervention as an adjunct to usual care that is deliverable in the UK National Health Service and Australian community mental health service (CMHS) settings. We will assess the feasibility of candidate primary outcomes, candidate secondary outcomes, and candidate mechanisms for a definitive trial. MethodsWe will randomize CMHSs to EMPOWER or TAU. We aim to recruit up to 120 service user participants from 8 CMHSs and follow them for 12 months. Eligible service users will (1) be aged 16 years and above, (2) be in contact with local CMHSs, (3) have either been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient service or received crisis intervention at least once in the previous 2 years for a relapse, and (4) have an International Classification of Diseases-10 diagnosis of a schizophrenia-related disorder. Service users will also be invited to nominate a carer to participate. We will identify the feasibility of the main trial in terms of recruitment and retention to the study and the acceptability, usability, safety, and outcome signals of the EMPOWER intervention. EMPOWER is a mobile phone app that enables the monitoring of well-being and possible EWSs of relapse on a daily basis. An algorithm calculates changes in well-being based on participants’ own baseline to enable tailoring of well-being messaging and clinical triage of possible EWSs. Use of the app is blended with ongoing peer support. ResultsRecruitment to the trial began September 2018, and follow-up of participants was completed in July 2019. Data collection is continuing. The database was locked in July 2019, followed by analysis and disclosing of group allocation. ConclusionsThe knowledge gained from the study will inform the design of a definitive trial including finalizing the delivery of our digital health intervention, sample size estimation, methods to ensure successful identification, consent, randomization, and follow-up of participants, and the primary and secondary outcomes. The trial will also inform the final health economic model to be applied in the main trial. Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 99559262; http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN99559262 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/15058

The role of biomarkers in risk-based early detection of lung cancer may enable screening to become cost effective and widely accessible. EarlyCDT-Lung is an example of such a blood-based autoantibody biomarker which may improve accessibility to Low dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) screening for those at highest risk. We randomized 12 208 individuals aged 50–75 at high risk of developing lung cancer to either the test or to standard clinical care. Outcomes were ascertained from Register of Deaths and Cancer Registry. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio of the rate of deaths from all causes and lung cancer. Additional analyses were performed for cases of lung cancer diagnosed within two years of the initial test. After 5 years 326 lung cancers were detected (2.7% of those enrolled). The total number of deaths reported from all causes in the intervention group was 344 compared to 388 in the control group. There were 73 lung cancer deaths in the intervention arm and 90 in the controls (Adjusted HR 0.789 (0.636, 0.978). An analysis of cases of lung cancer detected within 2 years of randomization in the intervention group showed that there were 34 deaths from all causes and 29 from lung cancer. In the control group there were 56 deaths with 49 from lung cancer. In those diagnosed with lung cancer within 2 years of randomization the hazard ratio for all cause mortality was 0.615 (0.401,0.942) and for lung cancer 0.598 (0.378, 0.946). Further large-scale studies of the role of biomarkers to target lung cancer screening, in addition to LDCT, are likely to provide additional value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion during lung transplantation is a resource‐intensive technology. In light of its increasing use, we evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of ex vivo lung perfusion at a low‐volume lung transplant center in the USA. Methods: Patients listed for lung transplantation (2015–2021) in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. Quality‐of‐life was approximated by Karnofsky Performance Status scores 1‐year post‐transplant. Total transplantation encounter and 1‐year follow‐up costs accrued by our academic center for patients listed from 2018 to 2021 were obtained. Cost‐effectiveness was calculated by evaluating the number of patients attaining various Karnofsky scores relative to cost. Results: Of the 13 930 adult patients who underwent lung transplant in the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 13 477 (96.7%) used static cold storage and 453 (3.3%) used ex vivo lung perfusion, compared to 30/58 (51.7%) and 28/58 (48.3%), respectively, at our center. Compared to static cold storage, median total costs at 1 year were higher for ex vivo lung perfusion ($918 000 vs. $516 000; p = 0.007) along with the cost of living 1 year with a Karnofsky functional status of 100 after transplant ($1 290 000 vs. $841 000). In simulated scenarios, each Karnofsky‐adjusted life year gained by ex vivo lung perfusion was 1.00–1.72 times more expensive. Conclusions: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion is not currently cost‐effective at a low‐volume transplant centers in the USA, being 1.53 times more expensive per Karnofsky‐adjusted life year. Improving donor lung and/or recipient biology during ex vivo lung perfusion may improve its utility for routine transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: For people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of exacerbations, does bisoprolol reduce the number of exacerbations? Finding: In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of 515 people with COPD, the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both did not differ significantly with use of bisoprolol (mean exacerbations, 2.03/y) vs placebo (mean exacerbations, 2.01/y). Meaning: Treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. This randomized clinical trial examines whether the addition of bisoprolol to treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of exacerbation reduces the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations. Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that β-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P =.72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P =.96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnostic blood tests have the potential to identify lung cancer in people at high risk. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening intervention, using the EarlyCDT®-Lung Test (ECLS) with subsequent X-ray and low-dose chest CT scans (LDCT) for patients with a positive test result, compared to both usual care and LDCT screening for the target population. Methods: We conducted a model-based lifetime analysis from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective. We estimated incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) for the ECLS intervention compared to no screening and to LDCT screening. Results: The incremental NMB of ECLS intervention compared to no screening was GBP 33,179 (95% CI: −GBP 81,396, GBP 147,180) and GBP 140,609 (95% CI: −GBP 36,255, GBP 316,612), respectively, for a cost-effectiveness threshold of GBP 20,000 and GBP 30,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The same figures compared with LDCT screening were GBP 162,095 (95% CI: GBP 52,698, GBP 271,735) and GBP 52,185 (95% CI: −GBP 115,152, GBP 219,711). Conclusions: The ECLS intervention is the most cost-effective screening alternative, with the highest probability of being cost-effective, when compared to no screening or LDCT screening. This result may change with modifications of the parameters, suggesting that the three alternatives considered in the main analysis are potentially cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eighty per cent of UK women have at least one baby, making pregnancy an opportunity to help women stop smoking before their health is irreparably compromised. Smoking cessation during pregnancy helps protect infants from miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight, asthma, attention deficit disorder and adult cardiovascular disease. UK national guidelines highlight lack of evidence for effectiveness of financial incentives to help pregnant smokers quit. This includes a research recommendation: within a UK context, are incentives an acceptable, effective and cost-effective way to help pregnant women who smoke to quit?Methods: The Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT) III is a pragmatic, 42-month, multi-centre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial of the effect on smoking status of adding to usual Stop Smoking Services (SSS) support, the offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives, compared with usual support alone, to quit smoking during pregnancy. Participants (n = 940) are pregnant smokers (age > 16 years, < 24 weeks pregnant, English speaking), who consent via telephone to take part and are willing to be followed-up in late pregnancy and 6 months after birth. The primary outcome is cotinine/anabasine-validated abstinence from smoking in late pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include engagement with SSS, quit rates at 4 weeks from agreed quit date and 6 months after birth, and birth weight. Outcomes will be analysed by intention to treat, and regression models will be used to compare treatment effects on outcomes. A meta-analysis will include data from the feasibility study in Glasgow. An economic evaluation will assess cost-effectiveness from a UK NHS perspective. Process evaluation using a case-study approach will identify opportunities to improve recruitment and learning for future implementation. Research questions include: what is the therapeutic efficacy of incentives; are incentives cost-effective; and what are the potential facilitators and barriers to implementing incentives in different parts of the UK?Discussion: This phase III trial in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland follows a successful phase II trial in Glasgow, UK. The participating sites have diverse SSS that represent most cessation services in the UK and serve demographically varied populations. If found to be acceptable and cost-effective, this trial could demonstrate that financial incentives are effective and transferable to most UK SSS for pregnant women.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN15236311. Registered on 9 October 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]