Emily Peckham

Bespoke smoking cessation for people with severe mental ill health (SCIMITAR): a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND People with severe mental ill health are three times more likely to smoke but typically do not access conventional smoking cessation services, contributing to widening health inequalities and reduced life expectancy. We aimed to pilot an intervention targeted at smokers with severe mental ill health and to test methods of recruitment, randomisation, and follow up before implementing a full trial. METHODS The Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR) is a pilot randomised controlled trial of a smoking cessation strategy designed specifically for people with severe mental ill health, to be delivered by mental health nurses and consisting of behavioural support and drugs, compared with a conventional smoking cessation service (ie, usual care). Adults (aged 18 years or older) with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, who were current smokers, were recruited from NHS primary care and mental health settings in the UK (York, Scarborough, Hull, and Manchester). Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either usual care (control group) or usual care plus the bespoke smoking cessation strategy (intervention group). Randomisation was done via a central telephone system, with computer-generated random numbers. We could not mask participants, family doctors, and researchers to the treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was smoking status at 12 months, verified by carbon monoxide measurements or self-report. Only participants who provided an exhaled CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status at 12 months were included in the primary analysis. The trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN79497236. FINDINGS Of 97 people recruited to the pilot study, 51 were randomly allocated to the control group and 46 were assigned to the intervention group. Participants engaged well with the bespoke smoking cessation strategy, but no individuals assigned to usual care accessed NHS smoking cessation services. At 12 months, 35 (69%) controls and 33 (72%) people assigned to the intervention group provided a CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status. Smoking cessation was highest among individuals who received the bespoke intervention (12/33 [36%] vs 8/35 [23%]; adjusted odds ratio 2·9, 95% CI 0·8-10·5). INTERPRETATION We have shown the feasibility of recruiting and randomising people with severe mental ill health in a trial of this nature. The level of engagement with a bespoke smoking cessation strategy was higher than with a conventional approach. The effectiveness and safety of a smoking cessation programme designed particularly for people with severe mental ill health should be tested in a fully powered randomised controlled trial. FUNDING National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Varenicline for smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illnesses : systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS To determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline in treating tobacco dependence in patients with severe mental illness. DESIGN A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared varenicline with a placebo or an alternative intervention for smoking cessation or reduction. SETTING Both in- and out-patient settings in any country. PARTICIPANTS Adult patients aged 18 years and over with any type of severe mental illness. The systematic review included eight studies comprising 398 participants. MEASURES Primary outcome measures were (1) smoking cessation, (2) smoking reduction measured by changes in the number of cigarettes smoked per day and (3) number of psychiatric adverse events, which were collected at the end of treatment. FINDINGS The random-effect pooled estimates from the five studies that reported smoking-related outcomes found that varenicline is statistically superior to placebo in smoking cessation [risk ratios 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.96-9.56], and smoking reduction was higher in varenicline groups (mean reduced daily cigarettes was 6.39; 95% CI = 2.22-10.56). There is no significant difference regarding neuropsychiatric and other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Varenicline appears to be significantly more effective than placebo in assisting with smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illness. There appears to be no clear evidence that varenicline was associated with an increased risk of neuropsychiatric or other adverse events compared with placebo.

Smoking Cessation Intervention for severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR): a pilot randomised control trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation service

BACKGROUND There is a high prevalence of smoking among people who experience severe mental ill health (SMI). Helping people with disorders such as bipolar illness and schizophrenia to quit smoking would help improve their health, increase longevity and also reduce health inequalities. Around half of people with SMI who smoke express an interest in cutting down or quitting smoking. There is limited evidence that smoking cessation can be achieved for people with SMI. Those with SMI rarely access routine NHS smoking cessation services. This suggests the need to develop and evaluate a behavioural support and medication package tailored to the needs of people with SMI. OBJECTIVE The objective in this project was to conduct a pilot trial to establish acceptability of the intervention and to ensure the feasibility of recruitment, randomisation and follow-up. We also sought preliminary estimates of effect size in order to design a fully powered trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The pilot should inform a fully powered trial to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) intervention with usual general practitioner (GP) care for people with SMI. DESIGN A pilot pragmatic two-arm individually randomised controlled trial (RCT). Simple randomisation was used following a computer-generated random number sequence. Participants and practitioners were not blinded to allocation. SETTING Primary care and secondary care mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS Smokers aged > 18 years with a severe mental illness who would like to cut down or quit smoking. INTERVENTIONS A BSC intervention delivered by mental health specialists trained to deliver evidence-supported smoking cessation interventions compared with usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified smoking cessation at 12 months. Smoking-related secondary outcomes were reduction of number of cigarettes smoked, Fagerstrom test of nicotine dependence and motivation to quit (MTQ). Other secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items and Short Form Questionnaire-12 items to assess whether there were improvements or deterioration in mental health and quality of life. We also measured body mass index to assess whether or not smoking cessation was associated with weight gain. These were measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. RESULTS The trial recruited 97 people aged 19-73 years who smoked between 5 and 60 cigarettes per day (mean 25 cigarettes). Participants were recruited from four mental health trusts and 45 GP surgeries. Forty-six people were randomised to the BSC intervention and 51 people were randomised to usual GP care. The odds of quitting at 12 months was higher in the BSC intervention (36% vs. 23%) but did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio 2.9; 95% confidence interval 0.8% to 10.5%). At 3 and 6 months there was no evidence of difference in self-reported smoking cessation. There was a non-significant reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked and nicotine dependence. MTQ and number of quit attempts all increased in the BSC group compared with usual care. There was no difference in terms of quality of life at any time point, but there was evidence of an increase in depression scores at 12 months for the BSC group. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial interventions. The pilot economic analysis demonstrated that it was feasible to carry out a full economic analysis. CONCLUSIONS It was possible to recruit people with SMI from primary and secondary care to a trial of a smoking cessation intervention based around behavioural support and medication. The overall direction of effect was a positive trend in relation to biochemically verified smoking cessation and it was feasible to obtain follow-up in a substantial proportion of participants. A definitive trial of a bespoke cessation intervention has been prioritised by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the SCIMITAR pilot trial forms a template for a fully powered RCT to examine clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79497236. 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. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy Trial (OCTET) comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-managed therapies: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundUK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) specify recommendations for the treatment and management of OCD using a stepped care approach. Steps three to six of this model recommend treatment options for people with OCD that range from low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) to more intensive psychological and pharmacological interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), including exposure and response prevention, is the recommended psychological treatment. However, whilst there is some preliminary evidence that self-managed therapy packages for OCD can be effective, a more robust evidence base of their clinical and cost effectiveness and acceptability is required.Methods/DesignOur proposed study will test two different self-help treatments for OCD: 1) computerised CBT (cCBT) using OCFighter, an internet-delivered OCD treatment package; and 2) GSH using a book. Both treatments will be accompanied by email or telephone support from a mental health professional. We will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and patient and health professional acceptability of the treatments.DiscussionThis study will provide more robust evidence of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability of self-help treatments for OCD. If cCBT and/or GSH prove effective, it will provide additional, more accessible treatment options for people with OCD.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN73535163. Date of registration: 5 April 2011

The completeness of intervention descriptions in randomised trials of supervised exercise training in peripheral arterial disease

Research supports the use of supervised exercise training as a primary therapy for improving the functional status of people with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Several reviews have focused on reporting the outcomes of exercise interventions, but none have critically examined the quality of intervention reporting. Adequate reporting of the exercise protocols used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is central to interpreting study findings and translating effective interventions into practice. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in RCTs of supervised exercise training in people with PAD. A systematic search strategy was used to identify relevant trials published until June 2015. Intervention description completeness in the main trial publication was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Missing intervention details were then sought from additional published material and by emailing authors. Fifty-eight trials were included, reporting on 76 interventions. Within publications, none of the interventions were sufficiently described for all of the items required for replication; this increased to 24 (32%) after contacting authors. Although programme duration, and session frequency and duration were well-reported in publications, complete descriptions of the equipment used, intervention provider, and number of participants per session were missing for three quarters or more of interventions (missing for 75%, 93% and 80% of interventions, respectively). Furthermore, 20%, 24% and 26% of interventions were not sufficiently described for the mode of exercise, intensity of exercise, and tailoring/progression, respectively. Information on intervention adherence/fidelity was also frequently missing: attendance rates were adequately described for 29 (38%) interventions, whereas sufficient detail about the intensity of exercise performed was presented for only 8 (11%) interventions. Important intervention details are commonly missing for supervised exercise programmes in the PAD trial literature. This has implications for the interpretation of outcome data, the investigation of dose-response effects, and the replication of protocols in future studies and clinical practice. Researchers should be mindful of intervention reporting guidelines when attempting to publish information about supervised exercise programmes, regardless of the population being studied.

The use of unequal randomisation in clinical trials — An update

OBJECTIVE To update a 2005 review of the reasons researchers have given for the use of unequal randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MAIN MEASURES Intervention being tested; type of study; number of participants; randomisation ratio; sample size calculation and reason given for using unequal randomisation. METHODS Review of trials using unequal randomisation. DATABASES AND SOURCES Cochrane library, Medline and CINAHL. RESULTS A total of 86 trials were identified. Of these 82 trials (95%) recruited patients in favour of the experimental group. Various reasons for the use of unequal randomisation were given including: gaining treatment experience; identification of adverse events; ethical; logistic and enhancing recruitment. No trial reported explicitly used it for cost-effectiveness. Most of the papers (i.e. 47, 55%) did not state why they had used unequal randomisation and only 38 trials (44%) appeared to have taken the unequal randomisation into account in their sample size calculation. CONCLUSION Most studies did not mention the rationale for unequal allocation, and a significant proportion did not appear to account for it in the sample size calculations. Unlike the previous review economic considerations were not stated as a rationale for its use. A number of trials used it to enhance recruitment, although this has not been tested.

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET).

BACKGROUND The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. DESIGN A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. RESULTS Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. LIMITATIONS A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. CONCLUSIONS Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73535163. 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. 21, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The ethics of ‘Trials within Cohorts’ (TwiCs): 2nd international symposium

On 7-8 November 2016, 60 people with an interest in the ‘Trials within Cohorts’ (TwiCs) approach for randomised controlled trial design met in London. The purpose of this 2 TwiCs international symposium was to share perspectives and experiences on ethical aspects of the TwiCs design, discuss how TwiCs relate to the current ethical framework, provide a forum in which to discuss and debate ethical issues and identify future directions for conceptual and empirical research. The symposium was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber and organised by members of the TwiCs network led by Clare Relton and attended by people from the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and USA. The two-day symposium enabled an international group to meet and share experiences of the TwiCs design (also known as the ‘cohort multiple RCT design’), and to discuss plans for future research. Over the two days, invited plenary talks were interspersed by discussions, posters and mini presentations from bioethicists, triallists and health research regulators. Key findings of the symposium were: (1) It is possible to make a compelling case to ethics committees that TwiCs designs are appropriate and ethical; (2) The importance of wider considerations around the ethics of inefficient trial designs; and (3) some questions about the ethical requirements for content and timing of informed consent for a study using the TwiCs design need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Main report On 7-8 November 2016, 60 people with an interest in the ‘Trials within Cohorts’ (TwiCs) design met in London for the 2 TwiCs international symposium. The symposium was supported by the Wellcome Trust and NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber and organised by members of the TwiCs network led by Clare Relton. As well as UK participants, people came from the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and USA. Over the two days, the invited plenary talks were interspersed by discussions, posters and mini presentations from bioethicists, triallists and health research regulators.

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness

Background Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. “High-intensity” cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current “best practice.” However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for “low-intensity” interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web-based materials with limited therapist support) can be provided remotely, which has the potential to increase access. However, current evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is insufficient. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of 2 forms of low-intensity CBT prior to high-intensity CBT, in adults meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for OCD. Methods and findings This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West–Lancaster (reference number 11/NW/0276). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial. We conducted a 3-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial in primary- and secondary-care United Kingdom mental health services. All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual). Four hundred and seventy-three eligible patients were recruited and randomised. Patients had a median age of 33 years, and 60% were female. The majority were experiencing severe OCD. Patients received 1 of 2 low-intensity interventions: computerised CBT (cCBT; web-based CBT materials and limited telephone support) through “OCFighter” or guided self-help (written CBT materials with limited telephone or face-to-face support). Primary comparisons concerned OCD symptoms, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale–Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and functioning. At 3 months, guided self-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean difference = −1.91, 95% CI −3.27 to −0.55). These effects did not reach a prespecified level of “clinically significant benefit.” cCBT did not demonstrate significant benefit (adjusted mean difference = −0.71, 95% CI −2.12 to 0.70). At 12 months, neither guided self-help nor cCBT led to differences in OCD symptoms. Early access to low-intensity interventions led to significant reductions in uptake of high-intensity CBT over 12 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by the end of the trial, compared to 62% in supported cCBT and 57% in guided self-help. These reductions did not compromise longer-term patient outcomes. Data suggested small differences in satisfaction at 3 months, with patients more satisfied with guided self-help than supported cCBT. A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the level of access to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment. Conclusions We have demonstrated that providing low-intensity interventions does not lead to clinically significant benefits but may reduce uptake of therapist-led CBT. Trial registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry ISRCTN73535163.

Making the journey with me: a qualitative study of experiences of a bespoke mental health smoking cessation intervention for service users with serious mental illness.

BackgroundSmoking is one of the major modifiable risk factors contributing to early mortality for people with serious mental illness. However, only a minority of service users access smoking cessation interventions and there are concerns about the appropriateness of generic stop-smoking services for this group. The SCIMITAR (Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill-Health Trial) feasibility study explored the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation intervention delivered by mental health workers. This paper reports on the nested qualitative study within the trial.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 service users receiving the intervention and 3 of the MHSCPs (mental health smoking cessation practitioners) delivering the intervention. Topic guides explored the perceived acceptability of the intervention particularly in contrast to generic stop-smoking services, and perceptions of the implementation of the intervention in practice. Transcripts were analysed using the Constant Comparative Method.ResultsGeneric services were reported to be inappropriate for this group, due to concerns over stigma and a lack of support from health professionals. The bespoke intervention was perceived positively, with both practitioners and service users emphasising the benefits of flexibility and personalisation in delivery. The mental health background of the practitioners was considered valuable not only due to their increased understanding of the service users’ illness but also due to the more collaborative relationship style they employed. Challenges involved delays in liaising with general practitioners and patient struggles with organisation and motivation, however the MHSCP was considered to be well placed to address these problems.ConclusionThe bespoke smoking cessation intervention was acceptable to service users and the both service users and practitioners reported the value of a protected mental health worker role for delivering smoking cessation to this group. The results have wider implications for understanding how to achieve integrated and personalised care for this high-risk population and further underscore the need for sensitised smoking cessation support for people with serious mental illness.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN79497236. Registered 3rd July 2009.