Timothy Chater

The Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme Monitoring Study--early results and lessons for the future.

BackgroundRisk sharing schemes represent an innovative and important approach to the problems of rationing and achieving cost-effectiveness in high cost or controversial health interventions. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of risk sharing schemes, looking at long term clinical outcomes, to determine the price at which high cost treatments would be acceptable to the NHS.MethodsThis case study of the first NHS risk sharing scheme, a long term prospective cohort study of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients in 71 specialist MS centres in UK NHS hospitals, recruited adults with relapsing forms of MS, meeting Association of British Neurologists (ABN) criteria for disease modifying therapy. Outcome measures were: success of recruitment and follow up over the first three years, analysis of baseline and initial follow up data and the prospect of estimating the long term cost-effectiveness of these treatments.ResultsCentres consented 5560 patients. Of the 4240 patients who had been in the study for a least one year, annual review data were available for 3730 (88.0%). Of the patients who had been in the study for at least two years and three years, subsequent annual review data were available for 2055 (78.5%) and 265 (71.8%) patients respectively. Baseline characteristics and a small but statistically significant progression of disease were similar to those reported in previous pivotal studies.ConclusionSuccessful recruitment, follow up and early data analysis suggest that risk sharing schemes should be able to deliver their objectives. However, important issues of analysis, and political and commercial conflicts of interest still need to be addressed.

Epidemiology of critically ill children in England and Wales: incidence, mortality, deprivation and ethnicity

Objective: The purpose of this work was to investigate the incidence rate for admission and mortality of children receiving paediatric intensive care in relation to socioeconomic status and ethnicity in England and Wales. Design: National cohort of sequential hospital admissions. Setting: Twenty nine paediatric intensive care units in England and Wales. Participants: All children aged under 16 years admitted to paediatric intensive care in the 4 years 2004–2007. Main outcome measures: Incidence rates for admission and odds ratios (OR) for risk-adjusted mortality by an area based measure of deprivation (Townsend score) and ethnic group (south Asian vs non-south Asian determined using two-name analysis algorithms). Results: The incidence for south Asian children was higher than that of non-south Asian children (138 vs 95/100u2009000, incidence rate ratio 1.36, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.40). The age-sex standardised incidence for children admitted to paediatric intensive care ranged from 69/100u2009000 in the least deprived fifth of the population to 124/100u2009000 in the most deprived fifth. The risk-adjusted OR for mortality for south Asian children was 1.36 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.57) overall, rising to 2.40 (95% CI 1.40 to 4.10) in the least deprived fifth of the population when a statistical interaction term for deprivation was included. Conclusions: In England and Wales, the admission rate to paediatric intensive care is higher for children from more deprived areas and 36% higher for children from the south Asian population. Risk-adjusted mortality increases in south Asian children as deprivation decreases.

South Yorkshire Cohort: a 'cohort trials facility' study of health and weight - Protocol for the recruitment phase

BackgroundGrowing levels of both obesity and chronic disease in the general population pose a major public health problem. In the UK, an innovative health and weight cohort trials facility, the South Yorkshire Cohort, is being built in order to provide robust evidence to inform policy, commissioning and clinical decisions in this field. This protocol reports the design of the facility and outlines the recruitment phase methods.Method/DesignThe South Yorkshire Cohort health and weight study uses the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design. This design recruits a large observational cohort of patients with the condition(s) of interest which then provides a facility for multiple randomised controlled trials (with large representative samples of participants, long term outcomes as standard, increased comparability between each trial conducted within the cohort and increased efficiency particularly for trials of expensive interventions) as well as ongoing information as to the natural history of the condition and treatment as usual.This study aims to recruit 20,000 participants to the population based South Yorkshire Cohort health and weight research trials facility. Participants are recruited by invitation letters from their General Practitioners. Data is collected using postal and/or online patient self completed Health Questionnaires. NHS numbers will be used to facilitate record linkage and access to routine data. Participants are eligible if they are: aged 16 - 85 years, registered with one of 40 practices in South Yorkshire, provide consent for further contact from the researchers and to have their information used to look at the benefit of health treatments. The first wave of data is being collected during 2010/12 and further waves are planned at 2 - 5 year intervals for the planned 20 year duration of the facility.DiscussionThe South Yorkshire Cohort combines the strengths of the standard observational, longitudinal cohort study design with a population based cohort facility for multiple randomised controlled trials in a range of long term health and weight related conditions (including obesity). This infrastructure will allow the rapid and cheap identification and recruitment of patients, and facilitate the provision of robust evidence to inform the management and self-management of health and weight.

Lifestyle Matters for maintenance of health and wellbeing in people aged 65 years and over: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundHealthy, active ageing is strongly associated with good mental wellbeing which in turn helps to prevent mental illness. However, more investment has been made into research into interventions to prevent mental illness than into those designed to improve mental wellbeing. This applied research programme will provide high quality evidence for an intervention designed to improve and sustain mental wellbeing in older adults.Methods/DesignThis study was a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial to determine the population benefit of an occupational therapy based intervention for community living people aged 65 years or older. Participants (n = 268) will be identified in one city in the North of England and in North Wales through GP mail-outs, signposting by local authority, primary care staff and voluntary sector organisations and through community engagement. Participants will be randomised to one of two treatment arms: an intervention (Lifestyle Matters programme); or control (routine access to health and social care). All participants will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 24 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome, which is a person reported outcome, is the SF-36 Mental Health dimension at six months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures have been selected to measure psychosocial, physical and mental health outcomes. They include other dimensions of the SF36, EQ-5D-3L, Brief Resilience Scale, General Perceived Self Efficacy Scale, PHQ-9, de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, Health and Social Care Resource Use and the wellbeing question of the Integrated Household Survey 2011. A cost effectiveness analysis will investigate the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of the Lifestyle Matters intervention compared with treatment as usual.DiscussionThe questions being posed through this research are important given the increasing numbers of older people, pressure on the public purse and the associated need to support good health in the extended lifespan. The proposed trial will determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention delivered in a UK context. The results will support commissioners and providers with decisions about implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN67209155

Rehabilitation of older patients: day hospital compared with rehabilitation at home. Clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVESnto test the hypothesis that older people and their informal carers are not disadvantaged by home-based rehabilitation (HBR) relative to day hospital rehabilitation (DHR).nnnDESIGNnpragmatic randomised controlled trial.nnnSETTINGnfour geriatric day hospitals and four home rehabilitation teams in England.nnnPARTICIPANTSneighty-nine patients referred for multidisciplinary rehabilitation. The target sample size was 460.nnnINTERVENTIONnmultidisciplinary rehabilitation either in the home or in the day hospital.nnnMEASUREMENTSnthe primary outcome measure was the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale (NEADL). Secondary outcome measures included EQ-5D, hospital anxiety and depression scale, therapy outcome measures, hospital admissions and the General Health Questionnaire for carers.nnnRESULTSnat the primary end point of 6 months NEADL scores were not significantly in favour of HBR cf. DHR; mean difference -2.139 (95% confidence interval -6.87 to 2.59, P = 0.37). A post hoc analysis suggested non-inferiority for HBR for NEADL but there was considerable statistical uncertainty.nnnCONCLUSIONntaken together the statistical analyses and lack of power of the trial outcomes do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that patients in receipt of HBR are disadvantaged compared with those receiving DHR.

Rehabilitation of older patients: day hospital compared with rehabilitation at home. A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVESnTo test the hypotheses that older people and their informal carers are not disadvantaged by home-based rehabilitation (HBR) relative to day hospital rehabilitation (DHR) and that HBR is less costly.nnnDESIGNnTwo-arm randomised controlled trial.nnnSETTINGnFour trusts in England providing both HBR and DHR.nnnPARTICIPANTSnClinical staff reviewed consecutive referrals to identify subjects who were potentially suitable for randomisation according to the defined inclusion criteria.nnnINTERVENTIONSnPatients were randomised to receive either HBR or DHR.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESnThe primary outcome measure was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale. Secondary outcome measures included the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs), hospital admissions and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30) for carers.nnnRESULTSnOverall, 89 subjects were randomised and 42 received rehabilitation in each arm of the trial. At the primary end point of 6 months there were 32 and 33 patients in the HBR and DHR arms respectively. Estimated mean scores on the NEADL scale at 6 months, after adjustment for baseline, were not significantly in favour of either HBR or DHR [DHR 30.78 (SD 15.01), HBR 32.11 (SD 16.89), p = 0.37; mean difference -2.139 (95% CI -6.870 to 2.592)]. Analysis of the non-inferiority of HBR over DHR using a non-inferiority limit (10%) applied to the confidence interval estimates for the different outcome measures at 6 months follow-up demonstrated non-inferiority for the NEADL scale, EQ-5D and HADS anxiety scale and some advantage for HBR on the HADS depression scale, of borderline statistical significance. Similar results were seen at 3 and 12 months follow-up, with a statistically significant difference in the mean EQ-5D(index) score in favour of DHR at 3 months (p = 0.047). At the end of rehabilitation, a greater proportion of the DHR group showed a positive direction of change from their initial assessment with respect to therapist-rated clinical outcomes; however, a lower proportion of HBR patients showed a negative direction of change and, overall, median scores on the TOMs scales did not differ between the two groups. Fewer patients in the HBR group were admitted to hospital on any occasion over the 12-month observation period [18 (43%) versus 22 (52%)]; however, this difference was not statistically significant. The psychological well-being of patients carers, measured at 3, 6 and 12 months, was unaffected by whether rehabilitation took place at day hospital or at home. As the primary outcome measure and EQ-5D(index) scores at 6 months showed no significant differences between the two arms of the trial, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken. Neither the public costs nor the total costs at the 6-month follow-up point (an average of 213 days total follow-up) or the 12-month follow-up point (an average of 395 days total follow-up) were significantly different between the groups.nnnCONCLUSIONSnCompared with DHR, providing rehabilitation in patients own homes confers no particular disadvantage for patients and carers. The cost of providing HBR does not appear to be significantly different from that of providing DHR. Rehabilitation providers and purchasers need to consider the place of care in the light of local needs, to provide the benefits of both kinds of services. Caution is required when interpreting the results of the RCT because a large proportion of potentially eligible subjects were not recruited to the trial, the required sample size was not achieved and there was a relatively large loss to follow-up.nnnTRIAL REGISTRATIONnCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN71801032.

A preventative lifestyle intervention for older adults (Lifestyle Matters): a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Objectives to test whether an occupation-based lifestyle intervention can sustain and improve the mental well-being of adults aged 65 years or over compared to usual care, using an individually randomised controlled trial. Participants 288 independently living adults aged 65 years or over, with normal cognition, were recruited from two UK sites between December 2011 and November 2015. Interventions lifestyle Matters is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended multi-component preventive intervention designed to improve the mental well-being of community living older people at risk of decline. It involves weekly group sessions over 4 months and one to one sessions. Main outcome measures the primary outcome was mental well-being at 6 months (mental health (MH) dimension of the SF-36). Secondary outcomes included physical health dimensions of the SF-36, extent of depression (PHQ-9), quality of life (EQ-5D) and loneliness (de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), assessed at 6 and 24 months. Results data on 262 (intervention = 136; usual care = 126) participants were analysed using intention to treat analysis. Mean SF-36 MH scores at 6 months differed by 2.3 points (95 CI: −1.3 to 5.9; P = 0.209) after adjustments. Conclusions analysis shows little evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness in the recruited population with analysis of the primary outcome revealing that the study participants were mentally well at baseline. The results pose questions regarding how preventive interventions to promote well-being in older adults can be effectively targeted in the absence of proactive mechanisms to identify those who at risk of decline. Trial Registration ISRCTN67209155.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Introduction While breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty is variable and largely non-evidence based, specifically with regard to rates of surgery for operable oestrogen receptor-positive disease and rates of chemotherapy for high-risk disease. Methods and analysis This multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (2015-18) reported here is nested within a larger ongoing ‘Age Gap Cohort Study’ (2012-18RP-PG-1209-10071), aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention of decision support interventions to assist in the treatment decision making for early breast cancer in older women. The interventions include two patient decision aids (primary endocrine therapy vs surgery/antioestrogen therapy and chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy) and a clinical treatment outcomes algorithm for clinicians. Ethics and dissemination National and local ethics committee approval was obtained for all UK participating sites. Results from the trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. IRAS reference 115550. Trial registration number European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2015-004220-61;Pre-results. Sponsors Protocol Code Number Sheffield Teaching Hospitals STH17086. ISRCTN 32447*.

Behavioural Activation Therapy for Depression after Stroke (BEADS): a study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled pilot trial of a psychological intervention for post-stroke depression

BackgroundThere is currently insufficient evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies for treating post-stroke depression.Methods/DesignBEADS is a parallel group feasibility multicentre randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative research and economic evaluation. The aim is to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a full trial comparing behavioural activation (BA) to usual stroke care for 4xa0months for patients with post-stroke depression. We aim to recruit 72 patients with post-stroke depression over 12xa0months at three centres, with patients identified from the National Health Service (NHS) community and acute services and from the voluntary sector. They will be randomly allocated to receive behavioural activation in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at 6xa0months after randomisation for both participants and their carers, to determine their effectiveness. The primary clinical outcome measure for the full trial will be the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Rates of consent, recruitment and follow-up by centre and randomised group will be reported. The acceptability of the intervention to patients, their carers and therapists will also be assessed using qualitative interviews. The economic evaluation will be undertaken from the National Health Service and personal social service perspective, with a supplementary analysis from the societal perspective. A value of information analysis will be completed to identify the areas in which future research will be most valuable.DiscussionThe feasibility outcomes from this trial will provide the data needed to inform the design of a definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for treating post-stroke depression.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN12715175

Recruitment of older adults to three preventative lifestyle improvement studies

BackgroundRecruiting isolated older adults to clinical trials is complex, time-consuming and difficult. Previous studies have suggested querying existing databases to identify appropriate potential participants. We aim to compare recruitment techniques (general practitioner (GP) mail-outs, community engagement and clinician referrals) used in three randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies assessing the feasibility or effectiveness of two preventative interventions in isolated older adults (the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years interventions).MethodsDuring the three studies (the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, the Lifestyle Matters RCT, the Putting Life In Years RCT) data were collected about how participants were recruited. The number of letters sent by GP surgeries for each study was recorded. In the Lifestyle Matters RCT, we qualitatively interviewed participants and intervention facilitators at 6 months post randomisation to seek their thoughts on the recruitment process.ResultsReferrals were planned to be the main source of recruitment in the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, but due to a lack of engagement from district nurses, community engagement was the main source of recruitment. District nurse referrals and community engagement were also utilised in the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years RCTs; both mechanisms yielded few participants. GP mail-outs were the main source of recruitment in both the RCTs, but of those contacted, recruiting yield was low (<u20093%). Facilitators of the Lifestyle Matters intervention questioned whether the most appropriate individuals had been recruited. Participants recommended that direct contact with health professionals would be the most beneficial way to recruit.ConclusionsRecruitment to the Lifestyle Matters RCT did not mirror recruitment to the feasibility study of the same intervention. Direct district nurse referrals were not effective at recruiting participants. The majority of participants were recruited via GP mail-outs, which may have led to isolated individuals not being recruited to the trials. Further research is required into alternative recruitment techniques, including respondent-driven sampling plus mechanisms which will promote health care professionals to recruit vulnerable populations to research.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN28645428 (Putting Life In Years RCT). Registered on 11 April 2012;International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN67209155 (Lifestyle Matters RCT). Registered on 22 March 2012;ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03054311 (Lifestyle Matters feasibility study). Registered retrospectively on 19 January 2017.