Economic Evaluation of a General Hospital Unit for Older People with Delirium and Dementia (TEAM Randomised Controlled Trial)

Background

One in three hospital acute medical admissions is of an older person with cognitive impairment. Their outcomes are poor and the quality of their care in hospital has been criticised. A specialist unit to care for older people with delirium and dementia (the Medical and Mental Health Unit, MMHU) was developed and then tested in a randomised controlled trial where it delivered significantly higher quality of, and satisfaction with, care, but no significant benefits in terms of health status outcomes at three months.

Objective

To examine the cost-effectiveness of the MMHU for older people with delirium and dementia in general hospitals, compared with standard care.

Methods

Six hundred participants aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified on admission as cognitively impaired, were randomised to the MMHU or to standard care on acute geriatric or general medical wards. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, at 3-month follow-up, was assessed in trial-based economic evaluation (599/600 participants, intervention: 309). Multiple imputation and complete-case sample analyses were employed to deal with missing QALY data (55%).

Results

The total adjusted health and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months was £7714 and £7862 for MMHU and standard care groups, respectively (difference -£149 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -298, 4)). The difference in QALYs gained was 0.001 (95% CI: -0.006, 0.008). The probability that the intervention was dominant was 58%, and the probability that it was cost-saving with QALY loss was 39%. At £20,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 94%, falling to 59% when cost-saving QALY loss cases were excluded.

Conclusions

The MMHU was strongly cost-effective using usual criteria, although considerably less so when the less acceptable situation with QALY loss and cost savings were excluded. Nevertheless, this model of care is worthy of further evaluation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01136148","term_id":"NCT01136148"}}NCT01136148     

Two parallel,pragmatic, UK multicentre,randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundOne in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events.Methods/designVUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation.DiscussionDemonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally.

Trial registration

Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013 

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1576-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Financial Incentives to Promote Adherence to Depot Antipsychotic Medication: Economic Evaluation of a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

Background

Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis can promote adherence to depot antipsychotic medication, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been examined.

Methods

Economic evaluation within a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. 141 patients under the care of 73 teams (clusters) were randomised to intervention or control; 138 patients with diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder or bipolar disorder participated. Intervention participants received £15 per depot injection over 12 months, additional to usual acute, mental and community primary health services. The control group received usual health services. Main outcome measures: incremental cost per 20% increase in adherence to depot antipsychotic medication; incremental cost of ‘good’ adherence (defined as taking at least 95% of the prescribed number of depot medications over the intervention period).

Findings

Economic and outcome data for baseline and 12-month follow-up were available for 117 participants. The adjusted difference in adherence between groups was 12.2% (73.4% control vs. 85.6% intervention); the adjusted costs difference was £598 (95% CI -£4 533, £5 730). The extra cost per patient to increase adherence to depot medications by 20% was £982 (95% CI -£8 020, £14 000). The extra cost per patient of achieving ''good'' adherence was £2 950 (CI -£19 400, £27 800). Probability of cost-effectiveness exceeded 97.5% at willingness-to-pay values of £14 000 for a 20% increase in adherence and £27 800 for good adherence.

Interpretation

Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis is cost-effective in promoting adherence to depot antipsychotic medication. Direct healthcare costs (including costs of the financial incentive) are unlikely to be increased by this intervention.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN.com 77769281     

Effect of Health Risk Assessment and Counselling on Health Behaviour and Survival in Older People: A Pragmatic Randomised Trial

Background

Potentially avoidable risk factors continue to cause unnecessary disability and premature death in older people. Health risk assessment (HRA), a method successfully used in working-age populations, is a promising method for cost-effective health promotion and preventive care in older individuals, but the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of an innovative approach to HRA and counselling in older individuals for health behaviours, preventive care, and long-term survival.

Methods and Findings

This study was a pragmatic, single-centre randomised controlled clinical trial in community-dwelling individuals aged 65 y or older registered with one of 19 primary care physician (PCP) practices in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland. From November 2000 to January 2002, 874 participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and 1,410 to usual care. The intervention consisted of HRA based on self-administered questionnaires and individualised computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and PCP counselling over a 2-y period. Primary outcomes were health behaviours and preventive care use at 2 y and all-cause mortality at 8 y. At baseline, participants in the intervention group had a mean ± standard deviation of 6.9 ± 3.7 risk factors (including unfavourable health behaviours, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4.3 ± 1.8 deficits in recommended preventive care. At 2 y, favourable health behaviours and use of preventive care were more frequent in the intervention than in the control group (based on z-statistics from generalised estimating equation models). For example, 70% compared to 62% were physically active (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.16–1.77, p = 0.001), and 66% compared to 59% had influenza vaccinations in the past year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.09–1.66, p = 0.005). At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion alive was 77.9% in the intervention and 72.8% in the control group, for an absolute mortality difference of 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%–8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference). The hazard ratio of death comparing intervention with control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66–0.94, p = 0.009; based on Wald test from Cox regression model), and the number needed to receive the intervention to prevent one death was 21 (95% CI 12–79). The main limitations of the study include the single-site study design, the use of a brief self-administered questionnaire for 2-y outcome data collection, the unavailability of other long-term outcome data (e.g., functional status, nursing home admissions), and the availability of long-term follow-up data on mortality for analysis only in 2014.

Conclusions

This is the first trial to our knowledge demonstrating that a collaborative care model of HRA in community-dwelling older people not only results in better health behaviours and increased use of recommended preventive care interventions, but also improves survival. The intervention tested in our study may serve as a model of how to implement a relatively low-cost but effective programme of disease prevention and health promotion in older individuals.

Trial Registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424     

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1): Cluster Randomised Trial of Computerised Clinical Decision Support for Paramedics

Objective

To evaluate effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of Computerised Clinical Decision Support (CCDS) for paramedics attending older people who fall.

Design

Cluster trial randomised by paramedic; modelling.

Setting

13 ambulance stations in two UK emergency ambulance services.

Participants

42 of 409 eligible paramedics, who attended 779 older patients for a reported fall.

Interventions

Intervention paramedics received CCDS on Tablet computers to guide patient care. Control paramedics provided care as usual. One service had already installed electronic data capture.

Main Outcome Measures

Effectiveness: patients referred to falls service, patient reported quality of life and satisfaction, processes of care.

Safety

Further emergency contacts or death within one month.

Cost-Effectiveness

Costs and quality of life. We used findings from published Community Falls Prevention Trial to model cost-effectiveness.

Results

17 intervention paramedics used CCDS for 54 (12.4%) of 436 participants. They referred 42 (9.6%) to falls services, compared with 17 (5.0%) of 343 participants seen by 19 control paramedics [Odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72]. No adverse events were related to the intervention. Non-significant differences between groups included: subsequent emergency contacts (34.6% versus 29.1%; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.72); quality of life (mean SF12 differences: MCS −0.74, 95% CI −2.83 to +1.28; PCS −0.13, 95% CI −1.65 to +1.39) and non-conveyance (42.0% versus 36.7%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). However ambulance job cycle time was 8.9 minutes longer for intervention patients (95% CI 2.3 to 15.3). Average net cost of implementing CCDS was £208 per patient with existing electronic data capture, and £308 without. Modelling estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year at £15,000 with existing electronic data capture; and £22,200 without.

Conclusions

Intervention paramedics referred twice as many participants to falls services with no difference in safety. CCDS is potentially cost-effective, especially with existing electronic data capture.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Register ISRCTN10538608      

Comparison of active treatments for impaired glucose regulation: a Salford Royal Foundation Trust and Hitachi collaboration (CATFISH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundDiabetes is highly prevalent and contributes to significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Behaviour change interventions that target health and lifestyle factors associated with the onset of diabetes can delay progression to diabetes, but many approaches rely on intensive one-to-one contact by specialists. Health coaching is an approach based on motivational interviewing that can potentially deliver behaviour change interventions by non-specialists at a larger scale. This trial protocol describes a randomized controlled trial (CATFISH) that tests whether a web-enhanced telephone health coaching intervention (IGR3) is more acceptable and efficient than a telephone-only health coaching intervention (IGR2) for people with prediabetes (impaired glucose regulation).MethodsCATFISH is a two-parallel group, single-centre individually randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants are patients aged ≥18 years with impaired glucose regulation (HbA1c concentration between 42 and 47 mmol/mol), have access to a telephone and home internet and have been referred to an existing telephone health coaching service at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK. Participants who give written informed consent will be randomized remotely (via a clinical trials unit) to either the existing pathway (IGR2) or the new web-enhanced pathway (IGR3) for 9 months. The primary outcome measure is patient acceptability at 9 months, determined using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures at 9 months are: cost of delivery of IGR2 and IGR3, mental health, quality of life, patient activation, self-management, weight (kg), HbA1c concentration, and body mass index. All outcome measures will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative process evaluation will explore the experiences of participants and providers with a focus on understanding usability of interventions, mechanisms of behaviour change, and impact of context on delivery and user acceptability. Qualitative data will be analyzed using Framework.DiscussionThe CATFISH trial will provide a pragmatic assessment of whether a web-based information technology platform can enhance acceptability of a telephone health coaching intervention for people with prediabetes. The data will prove critical in understanding the role of web applications to improve engagement with evidence-based approaches to preventing diabetes.

Trial registration

ISRCTN16534814. Registered on 7 February 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1519-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

An Audit and Feedback Intervention for Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in General Dental Practice: The RAPiD Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

BackgroundDentists prescribe approximately 10% of antibiotics dispensed in UK community pharmacies. Despite clear clinical guidance, dentists often prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This cluster-randomised controlled trial used routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) dental prescribing and treatment claim data to compare the impact of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) interventions on dentists’ antibiotic prescribing rates.ConclusionsA&F derived from routinely collected datasets led to a significant reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists.

Trial Registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710     

Outcomes of a Geriatric Liaison Intervention to Prevent the Development of Postoperative Delirium in Frail Elderly Cancer Patients: Report on a Multicentre,Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background

Delirium is a serious and common postoperative complication, especially in frail elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a geriatric liaison intervention in comparison with standard care on the incidence of postoperative delirium in frail elderly cancer patients treated with an elective surgical procedure for a solid tumour.

Methods

Patients over 65 years of age who were undergoing elective surgery for a solid tumour were recruited to a multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. The patients were randomized to standard treatment versus a geriatric liaison intervention. The intervention consisted of a preoperative geriatric consultation, an individual treatment plan targeted at risk factors for delirium, daily visits by a geriatric nurse during the hospital stay and advice on managing any problems encountered. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium. The secondary outcome measures were the severity of delirium, length of hospital stay, complications, mortality, care dependency, quality of life, return to an independent preoperative living situation and additional care at home.

Results

In total, the data of 260 patients were analysed. Delirium occurred in 31 patients (11.9%), and there was no significant difference between the incidence of delirium in the intervention group and the usual-care group (9.4% vs. 14.3%, OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.29–1.35).

Conclusions

Within this study, a geriatric liaison intervention based on frailty for the prevention of postoperative delirium in frail elderly cancer patients undergoing elective surgery for a solid tumour has not proven to be effective.

Trial Registration

Nederlands Trial Register Trial ID NTR 823     

An intervention to improve teacher well-being support and training to support students in UK high schools (the WISE study): A cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundTeachers are at heightened risk of poor mental health and well-being, which is likely to impact on the support they provide to students, and student outcomes. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial, to test whether an intervention to improve mental health support and training for high school teachers led to improved mental health and well-being for teachers and students, compared to usual practice. We also conducted a cost evaluation of the intervention.Methods and findingsThe intervention comprised (i) Mental Health First Aid training for teachers to support students; (ii) a mental health awareness session; and (iii) a confidential staff peer support service. In total 25 mainstream, non-fee-paying secondary schools stratified by geographical area and free school meal entitlement were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 12) or control group (n = 13) after collection of baseline measures. We analysed data using mixed-effects repeated measures models in the intention-to-treat population, adjusted for stratification variables, sex, and years of experience. The primary outcome was teacher well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). Secondary outcomes were teacher depression, absence, and presenteeism, and student well-being, mental health difficulties, attendance, and attainment. Follow-up was at months 12 (T1) and 24 (T2). We collected process data to test the logic model underpinning the intervention, to aid interpretation of the findings. A total of 1,722 teachers were included in the primary analysis. Teacher well-being did not differ between groups at T2 (intervention mean well-being score 47.5, control group mean well-being score 48.4, adjusted mean difference −0.90, 95% CI –2.07 to 0.27, p = 0.130). The only effect on secondary outcomes was higher teacher-reported absence among the intervention group at T2 (intervention group median number of days absent 0, control group median number of days absent 0, ratio of geometric means 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09, p = 0.042). Process measures indicated little change in perceived mental health support, quality of relationships, and work-related stress. The average cost of the intervention was £9,103 per school. The study’s main limitations were a lack of blinding of research participants and the self-report nature of the outcome measures.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed no improvements to teacher or student mental health following the intervention, possibly due to a lack of impact on key drivers of poor mental health within the school environment. Future research should focus on structural and cultural changes to the school environment, which may be more effective at improving teacher and student mental health and well-being.Trial registrationwww.isrctn.com ISRCTN95909211.

Using a cluster randomized study, Judi Kidger and colleagues study an intervention to improve teacher wellbeing support and training to support students in UK high schools (the WISE study).     

Engagement,Retention, and Progression to Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Analysis of the Cluster-Randomised "Let's Prevent Diabetes" Trial

BackgroundPrevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global priority. Let’s Prevent Diabetes is a group-based diabetes prevention programme; it was evaluated in a cluster-randomised trial, in which the primary analysis showed a reduction in T2DM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.48–1.14, p = 0.18). We examined the association of engagement and retention with the Let’s Prevent Diabetes prevention programme and T2DM incidence.ConclusionsThis study suggests that being retained/engaged in a relatively low-resource, pragmatic diabetes prevention programme for those at high risk is associated with reductions in the progression to T2DM in comparison to those who receive standard care. Nonengagers and nonretainers share similar high-risk traits. Service providers of programmes should focus on reaching these hard-to-reach groups.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN80605705     

Impact of an Educational Intervention on Women's Knowledge and Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Cameroon

ObjectiveHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (Self-HPV) may be used as a primary cervical cancer screening method in a low resource setting. Our aim was to evaluate whether an educational intervention would improve women''s knowledge and confidence in the Self-HPV method.MethodWomen aged between 25 and 65 years old, eligible for cervical cancer screening, were randomly chosen to receive standard information (control group) or standard information followed by educational intervention (interventional group). Standard information included explanations about what the test detects (HPV), the link between HPV and cervical cancer and how to perform HPV self-sampling. The educational intervention consisted of a culturally tailored video about HPV, cervical cancer, Self-HPV and its relevancy as a screening test. All participants completed a questionnaire that assessed sociodemographic data, women''s knowledge about cervical cancer and acceptability of Self-HPV.ResultsA total of 302 women were enrolled in 4 health care centers in Yaoundé and the surrounding countryside. 301 women (149 in the “control group” and 152 in the “intervention group”) completed the full process and were included into the analysis. Participants who received the educational intervention had a significantly higher knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer than the control group (p<0.05), but no significant difference on Self-HPV acceptability and confidence in the method was noticed between the two groups.ConclusionEducational intervention promotes an increase in knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer. Further investigation should be conducted to determine if this intervention can be sustained beyond the short term and influences screening behavior.

Trials Registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN78123709     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units

Objective

To model the cost-effectiveness impact of routine use of an antimicrobial chlorhexidine gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings for the protection of central vascular lines in intensive care unit patients.

Design

This study uses a novel health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing versus transparent dressings in a French intensive care unit scenario. The 30-day time non-homogeneous markovian model comprises eight health states. The probabilities of events derive from a multicentre (12 French intensive care units) randomized controlled trial. 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations of 1,000 patients per dressing strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The outcome is the number of catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a recent French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient is also estimated.

Patients

1000 patients per group simulated based on the source randomized controlled trial involving 1,879 adults expected to require intravascular catheterization for 48 hours.

Intervention

Chlorhexidine Gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings.

Results

The chlorhexidine gluconate dressing prevents 11.8 infections /1,000 patients (95% confidence interval: [3.85; 19.64]) with a number needed to treat of 85 patients. The mean cost difference per patient of €141 is not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: [€-975; €1,258]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is of €12,046 per catheter-related bloodstream infection prevented, and the incremental net monetary benefit per patient is of €344.88.

Conclusions

According to the base case scenario, the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing is more cost-effective than the reference dressing.

Trial Registration

This model is based on the data from the RCT registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01189682).     

Effect of a Brief Outreach Educational Intervention on the Translation of Acute Poisoning Treatment Guidelines to Practice in Rural Sri Lankan Hospitals: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

In developing countries, including Sri Lanka, a high proportion of acute poisoning and other medical emergencies are initially treated in rural peripheral hospitals. Patients are then usually transferred to referral hospitals for further treatment. Guidelines are often used to promote better patient care in these emergencies. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN73983810) which aimed to assess the effect of a brief educational outreach (‘academic detailing’) intervention to promote the utilization of treatment guidelines for acute poisoning.

Methods and Findings

This cluster RCT was conducted in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka. All peripheral hospitals in the province were randomized to either intervention or control. All hospitals received a copy of the guidelines. The intervention hospitals received a brief out-reach academic detailing workshop which explained poisoning treatment guidelines and guideline promotional items designed to be used in daily care. Data were collected on all patients admitted due to poisoning for 12 months post-intervention in all study hospitals. Information collected included type of poison exposure, initial investigations, treatments and hospital outcome. Patients transferred from peripheral hospitals to referral hospitals had their clinical outcomes recorded. There were 23 intervention and 23 control hospitals. There were no significant differences in the patient characteristics, such as age, gender and the poisons ingested. The intervention hospitals showed a significant improvement in administration of activated charcoal [OR 2.95 (95% CI 1.28–6.80)]. There was no difference between hospitals in use of other decontamination methods.

Conclusion

This study shows that an educational intervention consisting of brief out-reach academic detailing was effective in changing treatment behavior in rural Sri Lankan hospitals. The intervention was only effective for treatments with direct clinician involvement, such as administering activated charcoal. It was not successful for treatments usually administered by non-professional staff such as forced emesis for poisoning.

Trial Registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN73983810 ISRCTN73983810     

Scheduled Intermittent Screening with Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Treatment with Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine versus Intermittent Preventive Therapy with Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine for Malaria in Pregnancy in Malawi: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundIn Africa, most plasmodium infections during pregnancy remain asymptomatic, yet are associated with maternal anemia and low birthweight. WHO recommends intermittent preventive therapy in pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). However, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) efficacy is threatened by high-level parasite resistance. We conducted a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scheduled intermittent screening with malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and treatment of RDT-positive women with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) as an alternative strategy to IPTp-SP.ConclusionsScheduled screening for malaria parasites with the current generation of RDTs three to four times during pregnancy as part of focused antenatal care was not superior to IPTp-SP in this area with high malaria transmission and high SP resistance and was associated with higher fetal loss and more malaria at delivery.

Trial Registration

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201103000280319; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN69800930     

Screening for Older Emergency Department Inpatients at Risk of Prolonged Hospital Stay: The Brief Geriatric Assessment Tool

Background

The aims of this study were 1) to confirm that combinations of brief geriatric assessment (BGA) items were significant risk factors for prolonged LHS among geriatric patients hospitalized in acute care medical units after their admission to the emergency department (ED); and 2) to determine whether these combinations of BGA items could be used as a prognostic tool of prolonged LHS.

Methods

Based on a prospective observational cohort design, 1254 inpatients (mean age ± standard deviation, 84.9±5.9 years; 59.3% female) recruited upon their admission to ED and discharged in acute care medical units of Angers University Hospital, France, were selected in this study. At baseline assessment, a BGA was performed and included the following 6 items: age ≥85years, male gender, polypharmacy (i.e., ≥5 drugs per day), use of home-help services, history of falls in previous 6 months and temporal disorientation (i.e., inability to give the month and/or year). The LHS in acute care medical units was prospectively calculated in number of days using the hospital registry.

Results

Area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of prolonged LHS of different combinations of BGA items ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. Cox regression models revealed that combinations defining a high risk of prolonged LHS, identified from ROC curves, were significant risk factors for prolonged LHS (hazard ratio >1.16 with P>0.010). Kaplan-Meier distributions of discharge showed that inpatients classified in high-risk group of prolonged LHS were discharged later than those in low-risk group (P<0.003). Prognostic value for prolonged LHS of all combinations was poor with sensitivity under 77%, a high variation of specificity (from 26.6 to 97.4) and a low likelihood ratio of positive test under 5.6.

Conclusion

Combinations of 6-item BGA tool were significant risk factors for prolonged LHS but their prognostic value was poor in the studied sample of older inpatients.     

REMCARE: Pragmatic Multi-Centre Randomised Trial of Reminiscence Groups for People with Dementia and their Family Carers: Effectiveness and Economic Analysis

BackgroundJoint reminiscence groups, involving people with dementia and family carers together, are popular, but the evidence-base is limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups as compared to usual care.MethodsThis multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocation ratio of 1:1, restricted to ensure viable sized intervention groups. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, three months and ten months (primary end-point), usually in the person''s home. Participants were recruited in eight centres, mainly through NHS Memory Clinics and NHS community mental health teams. Included participants were community resident people with mild to moderate dementia (DSM-IV), who had a relative or other care-giver in regular contact, to act as informant and willing and able to participate in intervention. 71% carers were spouses. 488 people with dementia (mean age 77.5)were randomised: 268 intervention, 220 control; 350 dyads completed the study (206 intervention, 144 control). The intervention evaluated was joint reminiscence groups (with up to 12 dyads) weekly for twelve weeks; monthly maintenance sessions for further seven months. Sessions followed a published treatment manual and were held in a variety of community settings. Two trained facilitators in each centre were supported by volunteers. Primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia (QoL-AD), psychological distress for the carer (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-28). Secondary outcome measures included: autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia; carer stress for the carer; mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both.ResultsThe intention to treat analysis (ANCOVA) identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes (self-reported QoL-AD mean difference 0.07 (-1.21 to 1.35), F = 0.48, p = 0.53). Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a General Health Questionnaire-28 sub-scale at the ten month end-point (mean difference 1.25 (0.25 to 2.26), F = 8.28, p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested improved autobiographical memory, quality of life and relationship quality for people with dementia attending more reminiscence sessions, however carers attending more groups showed increased care-giving stress. Economic analyses from a public sector perspective indicated that joint reminiscence groups are unlikely to be cost-effective. There were no significant adverse effects attributed to the intervention. Potential limitations of the study include less than optimal attendance at the group sessions—only 57% of participants attended at least half of the intervention sessions over the 10 month period, and a higher rate of study withdrawal in the control group.ConclusionsThis trial does not support the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups. Possible beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned are offset by raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN42430123     

Acute Dietary Nitrate Supplementation and Exercise Performance in COPD: A Double-Blind,Placebo-Controlled,Randomised Controlled Pilot Study

Background

Dietary nitrate supplementation can enhance exercise performance in healthy people, but it is not clear if it is beneficial in COPD. We investigated the hypotheses that acute nitrate dosing would improve exercise performance and reduce the oxygen cost of submaximal exercise in people with COPD.

Methods

We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over single dose study. Subjects were randomised to consume either nitrate-rich beetroot juice (containing 12.9mmoles nitrate) or placebo (nitrate-depleted beetroot juice) 3 hours prior to endurance cycle ergometry, performed at 70% of maximal workload assessed by a prior incremental exercise test. After a minimum washout period of 7 days the protocol was repeated with the crossover beverage.

Results

21 subjects successfully completed the study (age 68±7years; BMI 25.2±5.5kg/m²; FEV₁ percentage predicted 50.1±21.6%; peak VO₂ 18.0±5.9ml/min/kg). Resting diastolic blood pressure fell significantly with nitrate supplementation compared to placebo (-7±8mmHg nitrate vs. -1±8mmHg placebo; p = 0.008). Median endurance time did not differ significantly; nitrate 5.65 (3.90–10.40) minutes vs. placebo 6.40 (4.01–9.67) minutes (p = 0.50). However, isotime oxygen consumption (VO₂) was lower following nitrate supplementation (16.6±6.0ml/min/kg nitrate vs. 17.2±6.0ml/min/kg placebo; p = 0.043), and consequently nitrate supplementation caused a significant lowering of the amplitude of the VO₂-percentage isotime curve.

Conclusions

Acute administration of oral nitrate did not enhance endurance exercise performance; however the observation that beetroot juice caused reduced oxygen consumption at isotime suggests that further investigation of this treatment approach is warranted, perhaps targeting a more hypoxic phenotype.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN66099139