International subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, and aneurysm occlusion

BACKGROUND

Two types of treatment are being used for patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: endovascular detachable-coil treatment or craniotomy and clipping. We undertook a randomised, multicentre trial to compare these treatments in patients who were suitable for either treatment because the relative safety and efficacy of these approaches had not been established. Here we present clinical outcomes 1 year after treatment.

METHODS

2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, who were admitted to 42 neurosurgical centres, mainly in the UK and Europe, took part in the trial. They were randomly assigned to neurosurgical clipping (n=1070) or endovascular coiling (n=1073). The primary outcome was death or dependence at 1 year (defined by a modified Rankin scale of 3-6). Secondary outcomes included rebleeding from the treated aneurysm and risk of seizures. Long-term follow up continues. Analysis was in accordance with the randomised treatment.

FINDINGS

We report the 1-year outcomes for 1063 of 1073 patients allocated to endovascular treatment, and 1055 of 1070 patients allocated to neurosurgical treatment. 250 (23.5%) of 1063 patients allocated to endovascular treatment were dead or dependent at 1 year, compared with 326 (30.9%) of 1055 patients allocated to neurosurgery, an absolute risk reduction of 7.4% (95% CI 3.6-11.2, p=0.0001). The early survival advantage was maintained for up to 7 years and was significant (log rank p=0.03). The risk of epilepsy was substantially lower in patients allocated to endovascular treatment, but the risk of late rebleeding was higher.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms suitable for both treatments, endovascular coiling is more likely to result in independent survival at 1 year than neurosurgical clipping; the survival benefit continues for at least 7 years. The risk of late rebleeding is low, but is more common after endovascular coiling than after neurosurgical clipping.

External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting

BACKGROUND

Before considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures.

RESULTS

11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision.

METHODS

A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships.

RESULTS

71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

Haematological manifestations in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome: retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the haematological findings of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

DESIGN

Analysis of the demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of patients with SARS.

SETTING

Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong. Subjects All patients with a diagnosis of SARS between 11 March and 29 March 2003 who had no pre-existing haematological disorders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical end points included the need for intensive care and death. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine factors associated with adverse outcome.

RESULTS

64 male and 93 female patients were included in this study. The most common findings included lymphopenia in 153 (98%) of the 157 patients, neutrophilia in 129 (82%), thrombocytopenia in 87 patients (55%), followed by thrombocytosis in 77 (49%), and isolated prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time in 96 patients (63%). The haemoglobin count dropped by more than 20 g/l from baseline in 95 (61%) patients. Four patients (2.5%) developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. Lymphopenia was shown in haemato-lymphoid organs at postmortem examination. Multivariate analysis showed that advanced age and a high concentration of lactate dehydrogenase at presentation were independent predictors of an adverse outcome. Subsets of peripheral blood lymphocytes were analysed in 31 patients. The counts of CD4 positive and CD8 positive T cells fell early in the course of illness. Low counts of CD4 and CD8 cells at presentation were associated with adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Abnormal haematological variables were common among patients with SARS. Lymphopenia and the depletion of T lymphocyte subsets may be associated with disease activity.

The effects of improving sleep on mental health (OASIS): a randomised controlled trial with mediation analysis

BACKGROUND

Sleep difficulties might be a contributory causal factor in the occurrence of mental health problems. If this is true, improving sleep should benefit psychological health. We aimed to determine whether treating insomnia leads to a reduction in paranoia and hallucinations.

METHODS

We did this single-blind, randomised controlled trial (OASIS) at 26 UK universities. University students with insomnia were randomly assigned (1:1) with simple randomisation to receive digital cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for insomnia or usual care, and the research team were masked to the treatment. Online assessments took place at weeks 0, 3, 10 (end of therapy), and 22. The primary outcome measures were for insomnia, paranoia, and hallucinatory experiences. We did intention-to-treat analyses. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN61272251.

FINDINGS

Between March 5, 2015, and Feb 17, 2016, we randomly assigned 3755 participants to receive digital CBT for insomnia (n=1891) or usual practice (n=1864). Compared with usual practice, the sleep intervention at 10 weeks reduced insomnia (adjusted difference 4·78, 95% CI 4·29 to 5·26, Cohen's d=1·11; p<0·0001), paranoia (-2·22, -2·98 to -1·45, Cohen's d=0·19; p<0·0001), and hallucinations (-1·58, -1·98 to -1·18, Cohen's d=0·24; p<0·0001). Insomnia was a mediator of change in paranoia and hallucinations. No adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this is the largest randomised controlled trial of a psychological intervention for a mental health problem. It provides strong evidence that insomnia is a causal factor in the occurrence of psychotic experiences and other mental health problems. Whether the results generalise beyond a student population requires testing. The treatment of disrupted sleep might require a higher priority in mental health provision.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust.

Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data

BACKGROUND

Meta-analysis has become a well-known method for synthesis of quantitative data from previously conducted research in applied health sciences. So far, meta-analysis has been particularly useful in evaluating and comparing therapies and in assessing causes of disease. Consequently, the number of software packages that can perform meta-analysis has increased over the years. Unfortunately, it can take a substantial amount of time to get acquainted with some of these programs and most contain little or no interactive educational material. We set out to create and validate an easy-to-use and comprehensive meta-analysis package that would be simple enough programming-wise to remain available as a free download. We specifically aimed at students and researchers who are new to meta-analysis, with important parts of the development oriented towards creating internal interactive tutoring tools and designing features that would facilitate usage of the software as a companion to existing books on meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We took an unconventional approach and created a program that uses Excel as a calculation and programming platform. The main programming language was Visual Basic, as implemented in Visual Basic 6 and Visual Basic for Applications in Excel 2000 and higher. The development took approximately two years and resulted in the 'MIX' program, which can be downloaded from the program's website free of charge. Next, we set out to validate the MIX output with two major software packages as reference standards, namely STATA (metan, metabias, and metatrim) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2. Eight meta-analyses that had been published in major journals were used as data sources. All numerical and graphical results from analyses with MIX were identical to their counterparts in STATA and CMA. The MIX program distinguishes itself from most other programs by the extensive graphical output, the click-and-go (Excel) interface, and the educational features.

CONCLUSION

The MIX program is a valid tool for performing meta-analysis and may be particularly useful in educational environments. It can be downloaded free of charge via http://www.mix-for-meta-analysis.info or http://sourceforge.net/projects/meta-analysis.

The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed

OBJECTIVES

To examine the reporting characteristics and methodological details of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in 2000 and 2006 and assess whether the quality of reporting has improved after publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement in 2001.

DESIGN

Comparison of two cross sectional investigations. Study sample All primary reports of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in December 2000 (n=519) and December 2006 (n=616), including parallel group, crossover, cluster, factorial, and split body study designs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of general and methodological items reported, stratified by year and study design. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2000 and 2006.

RESULTS

The majority of trials were two arm (379/519 (73%) in 2000 v 468/616 (76%) in 2006) parallel group studies (383/519 (74%) v 477/616 (78%)) published in specialty journals (482/519 (93%) v 555/616 (90%)). In both 2000 and 2006, a median of 80 participants were recruited per trial for parallel group trials. The proportion of articles that reported drug trials decreased between 2000 and 2006 (from 393/519 (76%) to 356/616 (58%)), whereas the proportion of surgery trials increased (51/519 (10%) v 128/616 (21%)). There was an increase between 2000 and 2006 in the proportion of trial reports that included details of the primary outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33), sample size calculation (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.95), and the methods of random sequence generation (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.97) and allocation concealment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.76). There was no difference in the proportion of trials that provided specific details on who was blinded (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of several important aspects of trial methods improved between 2000 and 2006; however, the quality of reporting remains well below an acceptable level. Without complete and transparent reporting of how a trial was designed and conducted, it is difficult for readers to assess its conduct and validity.

Developing risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of methodology and reporting

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organisation estimates that by 2030 there will be approximately 350 million people with type 2 diabetes. Associated with renal complications, heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease, early identification of patients with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or those at an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes is an important challenge. We sought to systematically review and critically assess the conduct and reporting of methods used to develop risk prediction models for predicting the risk of having undiagnosed (prevalent) or future risk of developing (incident) type 2 diabetes in adults.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify studies published before May 2011 that describe the development of models combining two or more variables to predict the risk of prevalent or incident type 2 diabetes. We extracted key information that describes aspects of developing a prediction model including study design, sample size and number of events, outcome definition, risk predictor selection and coding, missing data, model-building strategies and aspects of performance.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies comprising 43 risk prediction models were included. Seventeen studies (44%) reported the development of models to predict incident type 2 diabetes, whilst 15 studies (38%) described the derivation of models to predict prevalent type 2 diabetes. In nine studies (23%), the number of events per variable was less than ten, whilst in fourteen studies there was insufficient information reported for this measure to be calculated. The number of candidate risk predictors ranged from four to sixty-four, and in seven studies it was unclear how many risk predictors were considered. A method, not recommended to select risk predictors for inclusion in the multivariate model, using statistical significance from univariate screening was carried out in eight studies (21%), whilst the selection procedure was unclear in ten studies (26%). Twenty-one risk prediction models (49%) were developed by categorising all continuous risk predictors. The treatment and handling of missing data were not reported in 16 studies (41%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found widespread use of poor methods that could jeopardise model development, including univariate pre-screening of variables, categorisation of continuous risk predictors and poor handling of missing data. The use of poor methods affects the reliability of the prediction model and ultimately compromises the accuracy of the probability estimates of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or the predicted risk of developing type 2 diabetes. In addition, many studies were characterised by a generally poor level of reporting, with many key details to objectively judge the usefulness of the models often omitted.

Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness of surgical stabilisation (spinal fusion) compared with intensive rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

15 secondary care orthopaedic and rehabilitation centres across the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

349 participants aged 18-55 with chronic low back pain of at least one year's duration who were considered candidates for spinal fusion.

INTERVENTION

Lumbar spine fusion or an intensive rehabilitation programme based on principles of cognitive behaviour therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcomes were the Oswestry disability index and the shuttle walking test measured at baseline and two years after randomisation. The SF-36 instrument was used as a secondary outcome measure.

RESULTS

176 participants were assigned to surgery and 173 to rehabilitation. 284 (81%) provided follow-up data at 24 months. The mean Oswestry disability index changed favourably from 46.5 (SD 14.6) to 34.0 (SD 21.1) in the surgery group and from 44.8 (SD14.8) to 36.1 (SD 20.6) in the rehabilitation group. The estimated mean difference between the groups was -4.1 (95% confidence interval -8.1 to -0.1, P = 0.045) in favour of surgery. No significant differences between the treatment groups were observed in the shuttle walking test or any of the other outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Both groups reported reductions in disability during two years of follow-up, possibly unrelated to the interventions. The statistical difference between treatment groups in one of the two primary outcome measures was marginal and only just reached the predefined minimal clinical difference, and the potential risk and additional cost of surgery also need to be considered. No clear evidence emerged that primary spinal fusion surgery was any more beneficial than intensive rehabilitation.

Randomized trial to compare bilateral vs. single internal mammary coronary artery bypass grafting: 1-year results of the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART)

AIMS

Observational data suggest that the use of bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) during coronary artery bypass graft surgery provides superior revascularization to a single internal mammary artery (SIMA), but concerns about safety have prevented the widespread use of BIMA. The Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART) is a randomized trial of BIMA vs. SIMA, with a primary outcome of survival at 10 years. This paper reports mortality, morbidity, and resource use data at 1 year.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Coronary artery bypass graft patients were enrolled in 28 hospitals in seven countries. Three thousand one hundred and two patients were randomly assigned to SIMA (n = 1554) or BIMA (n = 1548). The mean number of grafts was 3 for both groups. Forty per cent of the SIMA procedures and 42% of the BIMA were performed off-pump. Mortality at 30 days was 18 of 1548 (1.2%) for SIMA and 19 of 1537 (1.2%) for BIMA, and at 1 year was 36 of 1540 (2.3%) and 38 of 1529 (2.5%), respectively. The rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization were all ≤2% at 1 year and similar between the two groups. Sternal wound reconstruction was required in 0.6 and 1.9% of the SIMA and BIMA groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Data from ART demonstrate similar clinical outcomes for SIMA and BIMA at 1 year but BIMA grafts are associated with a small absolute increase (1.3%) in the need for sternal wound reconstruction. The results suggest that the use of BIMA grafts is feasible on a routine basis. The 10-year results of the ART will confirm whether BIMA grafting results in lower mortality and the need for repeat intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN46552265).

Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care.

METHODS

This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366.

FINDINGS

1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups.

INTERPRETATION

Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.

METHODS

PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.

INTERPRETATION

Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of a Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in the prevention of typhoid fever using a controlled human infection model of Salmonella Typhi: a randomised controlled, phase 2b trial

BACKGROUND

Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S Typhi) is responsible for an estimated 20 million infections and 200 000 deaths each year in resource poor regions of the world. Capsular Vi-polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccines (Vi-conjugate vaccines) are immunogenic and can be used from infancy but there are no efficacy data for the leading candidate vaccine being considered for widespread use. To address this knowledge gap, we assessed the efficacy of a Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine using an established human infection model of S Typhi.

METHODS

In this single-centre, randomised controlled, phase 2b study, using an established outpatient-based human typhoid infection model, we recruited healthy adult volunteers aged between 18 and 60 years, with no previous history of typhoid vaccination, infection, or prolonged residency in a typhoid-endemic region. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a single dose of Vi-conjugate (Vi-TT), Vi-polysaccharide (Vi-PS), or control meningococcal vaccine with a computer-generated randomisation schedule (block size 6). Investigators and participants were masked to treatment allocation, and an unmasked team of nurses administered the vaccines. Following oral ingestion of S Typhi, participants were assessed with daily blood culture over a 2-week period and diagnosed with typhoid infection when meeting pre-defined criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants diagnosed with typhoid infection (ie, attack rate), defined as persistent fever of 38°C or higher for 12 h or longer or S Typhi bacteraemia, following oral challenge administered 1 month after Vi-vaccination (Vi-TT or Vi-PS) compared with control vaccination. Analysis was per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02324751, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 18, 2015, and Nov 4, 2016, 112 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned; 34 to the control group, 37 to the Vi-PS group, and 41 to the Vi-TT group. 103 participants completed challenge (31 in the control group, 35 in the Vi-PS group, and 37 in the Vi-TT group) and were included in the per-protocol population. The composite criteria for typhoid diagnosis was met in 24 (77%) of 31 participants in the control group, 13 (35%) of 37 participants in the Vi-TT group, and 13 (35%) of 35 participants in the Vi-PS group to give vaccine efficacies of 54·6% (95% CI 26·8-71·8) for Vi-TT and 52·0% (23·2-70·0) for Vi-PS. Seroconversion was 100% in Vi-TT and 88·6% in Vi-PS participants, with significantly higher geometric mean titres detected 1-month post-vaccination in Vi-TT vaccinees. Four serious adverse events were reported during the conduct of the study, none of which were related to vaccination (one in the Vi-TT group and three in the Vi-PS group).

INTERPRETATION

Vi-TT is a highly immunogenic vaccine that significantly reduces typhoid fever cases when assessed using a stringent controlled model of typhoid infection. Vi-TT use has the potential to reduce both the burden of typhoid fever and associated health inequality.

FUNDING

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the European Commission FP7 grant, Advanced Immunization Technologies (ADITEC).

Immunogenicity and tolerability of recombinant serogroup B meningococcal vaccine administered with or without routine infant vaccinations according to different immunization schedules: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

In the absence of an effective vaccine, serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis (MenB) remains a major cause of invasive disease in early childhood in developed countries.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a multicomponent MenB vaccine (4CMenB) and routine infant vaccines when given either concomitantly or separately.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 2b, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled study of 1885 infants enrolled at age 2 months from August 2008 to July 2010 in Europe.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized 2:2:1:1 to receive (1) 4CMenB at 2, 4, and 6 months with routine vaccines (7-valent pneumococcal and combined diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines); (2) 4CMenB at 2, 4, and 6 months and routine vaccines at 3, 5, and 7 months; (3) 4CMenB with routine vaccines at 2, 3, and 4 months; or (4) routine vaccines alone at 2, 3, and 4 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentage of participants with human complement serum bactericidal activity (hSBA) titer of 1:5 or greater against 3 MenB strains specific for vaccine antigens (NZ98/254, 44/76-SL, and 5/99).

RESULTS

After three 4CMenB vaccinations, 99% or more of infants developed hSBA titers of 1:5 or greater against strains 44/76-SL and 5/99. For NZ98/254, this proportion was 79% (95% CI, 75.2%-82.4%) for vaccination at 2, 4, and 6 months with routine vaccines, 86.1% (95% CI, 82.9%-89.0%) for vaccination at 2, 4, and 6 months without routine vaccines, and 81.7% (95% CI, 76.6%-86.2%) for vaccination at 2, 3, and 4 months with routine vaccines. Responses to routine vaccines given with 4CMenB were noninferior to routine vaccines alone for all antigens, except for the responses to pertactin and serotype 6B pneumococcal polysaccharide. Fever was seen following 26% (158/602) to 41% (247/607) of 4CMenB doses when administered alone, compared with 23% (69/304) to 36% (109/306) after routine vaccines given alone and 51% (306/605) to 61% (380/624) after 4CMenB and routine vaccines administered together.

CONCLUSION

A 4CMenB vaccine is immunogenic against reference strains when administered with routine vaccines at 2, 4, and 6 or at 2, 3, and 4 months of age, producing minimal interference with the response to routine infant vaccinations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00721396.

Pneumococcal conjugate and plain polysaccharide vaccines have divergent effects on antigen-specific B cells

BACKGROUND

A 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (23vP), routinely administered at the age of 65, has limited effectiveness, and revaccination induces attenuated antibody responses. It is not known whether pneumococcal polysaccharide-protein conjugated vaccines (PCV), although highly effective in infants, offer any immunological advantages over 23vP in adults.

METHODS

We immunized adults with schedules combining both PCV and 23vP and investigated B-cell responses to establish whether PCV7 (a 7-valent PCV) induced T-dependent responses in adults, to assess the role of memory B cells in 23vP-induced antibody hyporesponsiveness, and to identify the B-cell subtypes involved.

RESULTS

A single dose of PCV7 induced significant increases in serotype-specific memory B-cell populations in peripheral blood indicating a T-dependent response. Conversely, immunization with 23vP resulted in a decrease in memory B-cell frequency. Furthermore, memory B-cell responses to subsequent immunization with PCV7, when given after 23vP, were attenuated. Notably, B1b cells, a subset important in protecting mice against pneumococci, were also depleted following immunization with 23vP in humans.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that PCV7 may have an immunological advantage over 23vP in adults and that 23vP-induced depletion of memory and B1b-cell subsets may provide a basis for antibody hyporesponsiveness and the limited effectiveness of 23vP. Clinical Trials Registration. ISRCTN: 78768849.

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: a parallel, two-arm, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a common cause of non-communicable disease. Guidelines recommend that physicians screen and offer brief advice to motivate weight loss through referral to behavioural weight loss programmes. However, physicians rarely intervene and no trials have been done on the subject. We did this trial to establish whether physician brief intervention is acceptable and effective for reducing bodyweight in patients with obesity.

METHODS

In this parallel, two-arm, randomised trial, patients who consulted 137 primary care physicians in England were screened for obesity. Individuals could be enrolled if they were aged at least 18 years, had a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m² (or at least 25 kg/m² if of Asian ethnicity), and had a raised body fat percentage. At the end of the consultation, the physician randomly assigned participants (1:1) to one of two 30 s interventions. Randomisation was done via preprepared randomisation cards labelled with a code representing the allocation, which were placed in opaque sealed envelopes and given to physicians to open at the time of treatment assignment. In the active intervention, the physician offered referral to a weight management group (12 sessions of 1 h each, once per week) and, if the referral was accepted, the physician ensured the patient made an appointment and offered follow-up. In the control intervention, the physician advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population, which was assessed blinded to treatment allocation. We also assessed asked patients' about their feelings on discussing their weight when they have visited their general practitioner for other reasons. Given the nature of the intervention, we did not anticipate any adverse events in the usual sense, so safety outcomes were not assessed. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN26563137.

FINDINGS

Between June 4, 2013, and Dec 23, 2014, we screened 8403 patients, of whom 2728 (32%) were obese. Of these obese patients, 2256 (83%) agreed to participate and 1882 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the support group and 942 individuals in the advice group. 722 (77%) individuals assigned to the support intervention agreed to attend the weight management group and 379 (40%) of these individuals attended, compared with 82 (9%) participants who were allocated the advice intervention. In the entire study population, mean weight change at 12 months was 2·43 kg with the support intervention and 1·04 kg with the advice intervention, giving an adjusted difference of 1·43 kg (95% CI 0·89-1·97). The reactions of the patients to the general practitioners' brief interventions did not differ significantly between the study groups in terms of appropriateness (adjusted odds ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·75-1·07, p=0·21) or helpfulness (1·05, 0·89-1·26, p=0·54); overall, four (<1%) patients thought their intervention was inappropriate and unhelpful and 1530 (81%) patients thought it was appropriate and helpful.

INTERPRETATION

A behaviourally-informed, very brief, physician-delivered opportunistic intervention is acceptable to patients and an effective way to reduce population mean weight.

FUNDING

The UK National Prevention Research Initiative.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community.

METHODS

PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19).

INTERPRETATION

Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications.

FUNDING

National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Azithromycin for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin, an antibiotic with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has been used to treat COVID-19, but evidence from community randomised trials is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of azithromycin to treat suspected COVID-19 among people in the community who had an increased risk of complications.

METHODS

In this UK-based, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course (PRINCIPLE), we randomly assigned people aged 65 years and older, or 50 years and older with at least one comorbidity, who had been unwell for 14 days or less with suspected COVID-19, to usual care plus azithromycin 500 mg daily for three days, usual care plus other interventions, or usual care alone. The trial had two coprimary endpoints measured within 28 days from randomisation: time to first self-reported recovery, analysed using a Bayesian piecewise exponential, and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression model. Eligible participants with outcome data were included in the primary analysis, and those who received the allocated treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The first participant was recruited to PRINCIPLE on April 2, 2020. The azithromycin group enrolled participants between May 22 and Nov 30, 2020, by which time 2265 participants had been randomly assigned, 540 to azithromycin plus usual care, 875 to usual care alone, and 850 to other interventions. 2120 (94%) of 2265 participants provided follow-up data and were included in the Bayesian primary analysis, 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group, 823 in the usual care alone group, and 797 in other intervention groups. 402 (80%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 631 (77%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group reported feeling recovered within 28 days. We found little evidence of a meaningful benefit in the azithromycin plus usual care group in time to first reported recovery versus usual care alone (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% Bayesian credibility interval [BCI] 0·95 to 1·23), equating to an estimated benefit in median time to first recovery of 0·94 days (95% BCI -0·56 to 2·43). The probability that there was a clinically meaningful benefit of at least 1·5 days in time to recovery was 0·23. 16 (3%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 28 (3%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group were hospitalised (absolute benefit in percentage 0·3%, 95% BCI -1·7 to 2·2). There were no deaths in either study group. Safety outcomes were similar in both groups. Two (1%) of 455 participants in the azothromycin plus usual care group and four (1%) of 668 participants in the usual care alone group reported admission to hospital during the trial, not related to COVID-19.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings do not justify the routine use of azithromycin for reducing time to recovery or risk of hospitalisation for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community. These findings have important antibiotic stewardship implications during this pandemic, as inappropriate use of antibiotics leads to increased antimicrobial resistance, and there is evidence that azithromycin use increased during the pandemic in the UK.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Immunogenicity of a tetravalent meningococcal glycoconjugate vaccine in infants: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Immunization with a meningococcal tetravalent (serogroup ACWY) glycoconjugate vaccine is recommended for all US adolescents. However, the currently licensed vaccine is poorly immunogenic in infancy, when the highest rates of disease are observed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the immunogenicity of a novel tetravalent CRM(197)-conjugated meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY) in infants.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open-label, controlled study of 225 UK and 196 Canadian 2-month-olds from August 2004 to September 2006.

INTERVENTION

UK infants received a primary course of MenACWY (at 2, 3, and 4 months or 2 and 4 months) or Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C monovalent meningococcal glycoconjugate vaccine (MenC) (at 2 and 4 months). All received MenACWY at 12 months. Canadian infants received MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months or 2 and 4 months; at 12 months they received MenACWY, a plain tetravalent polysaccharide vaccine, or no vaccine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Percentage of infants with a human complement serum bactericidal activity (hSBA) titer >or=1:4 after a primary course of MenACWY and after a 12-month booster. Safety and reactogenicity of MenACWY were also assessed.

RESULTS

According to the prespecified per-protocol analysis, the percentages (95% CIs) of MenACWY 2-, 3-, and 4-month recipients with hSBA titers >or=1:4 after primary immunization were serogroup A, 93% (84%-98%); C, 96% (89%-99%); W-135, 97% (90%-100%); and Y, 94% (86%-98%). With a post hoc intention-to-treat analysis with imputed values for missing data, these values were unchanged for serogroups C and Y; for serogroup A, values were 92% (84%-97%), and for W-135, 97% (91%-99%). For the per-protocol analysis of MenACWY 2-, 4-, and 6-month recipients, the percentages (95% CIs) of responders were A, 81% (71%-89%); C, 98% (92%-100%); W-135, 99% (93%-100%); and Y, 98% (92%-100%). With the imputed value analysis, these values were A, 83% (74%-89%); C, 98% (93%-99%); W-135, 99% (94%-100%); and Y, 98% (92%-99%). At least 84% of MenACWY 2- and 4-month recipients achieved hSBA titers >or=1:4 for serogroups C, W-135, and Y after primary immunization, as did at least 60% for serogroup A (per-protocol and imputation analysis). At least 95% of primary and booster MenACWY recipients achieved hSBA titers >or=1:4 for serogroups C, W-135, and Y at 13 months, as did at least 84% for serogroup A (per-protocol and imputation analysis). During the primary immunization course, postimmunization pain on leg movement was observed in 2% of UK MenACWY 2- and 4-month recipients and 4% of MenC 2- and 4-month recipients; a temperature of 38 degrees C or greater was observed in 4% and 2% in these groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MenACWY is well tolerated and immunogenic in infancy. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00262002.

Mobile Phone Text Messages to Support Treatment Adherence in Adults With High Blood Pressure (SMS-Text Adherence Support [StAR]): A Single-Blind, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of automated treatment adherence support delivered via mobile phone short message system (SMS) text messages on blood pressure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this pragmatic, single-blind, 3-arm, randomized trial (SMS-Text Adherence Support [StAR]) undertaken in South Africa, patients treated for high blood pressure were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to information only, interactive SMS text messaging, or usual care. The primary outcome was change in systolic blood pressure at 12 months from baseline measured with a validated oscillometric device. All trial staff were masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were intention to treat. Between June 26, 2012, and November 23, 2012, 1372 participants were randomized to receive information-only SMS text messages (n=457), interactive SMS text messages (n=458), or usual care (n=457). Primary outcome data were available for 1256 participants (92%). At 12 months, the mean adjusted change in systolic blood pressure compared with usual care was -2.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -4.4 to -0.04) with information-only SMS and -1.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -3.7 to 0.6) with interactive SMS. Odds ratios for the proportion of participants with a blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg were 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.95) for information-only messaging and 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.95) for interactive messaging compared with usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial of an automated adherence support program delivered by SMS text message in a general outpatient population of adults with high blood pressure, we found a small reduction in systolic blood pressure control compared with usual care at 12 months. There was no evidence that an interactive intervention increased this effect.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02019823. South African National Clinical Trials Register, number SANCTR DOH-27-1212-386; Pan Africa Trial Register, number PACTR201411000724141.

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance.

METHODS

For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7-35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291.

FINDINGS

From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference -1·49, 95% CI -2·16 to -0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (-0·91, -1·58 to -0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (-0·86, -1·53 to -0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (-0·97, 95% CI -1·64 to -0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (-1·01, -1·68 to -0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

A randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in dementia patients continuing or stopping neuroleptics (the DART-AD trial)

BACKGROUND

There have been increasing concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of neuroleptics in people with dementia, but there are very few long-term trials to inform clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of long-term treatment with neuroleptic agents upon global cognitive decline and neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with Alzheimer disease.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

DESIGN

Randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled parallel two-group treatment discontinuation trial.

SETTING

Oxfordshire, Newcastle and Gateshead, London and Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients currently prescribed the neuroleptics thioridazine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol trifluoperazine or risperidone for behavioural or psychiatric disturbance in dementia for at least 3 mo.

INTERVENTIONS

Continue neuroleptic treatment for 12 mo or switch to an identical placebo.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was total Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) score. Neuropsychiatric symptoms were evaluated with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI).

RESULTS

165 patients were randomised (83 to continue treatment and 82 to placebo, i.e., discontinue treatment), of whom 128 (78%) commenced treatment (64 continue/64 placebo). Of those, 26 were lost to follow-up (13 per arm), resulting in 51 patients per arm analysed for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between the continue treatment and placebo groups in the estimated mean change in SIB scores between baseline and 6 mo; estimated mean difference in deterioration (favouring placebo) -0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] -6.4 to 5.5), adjusted for baseline value (p = 0.9). For neuropsychiatric symptoms, there was no significant difference between the continue treatment and placebo groups (n = 56 and 53, respectively) in the estimated mean change in NPI scores between baseline and 6 mo; estimated mean difference in deterioration (favouring continue treatment) -2.4 (95% CI -8.2 to 3.5), adjusted for baseline value (p = 0.4). Both results became more pronounced at 12 mo. There was some evidence to suggest that those patients with initial NPI >/= 15 benefited on neuropsychiatric symptoms from continuing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

For most patients with AD, withdrawal of neuroleptics had no overall detrimental effect on functional and cognitive status. Neuroleptics may have some value in the maintenance treatment of more severe neuropsychiatric symptoms, but this benefit must be weighed against the side effects of therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials/National Research Register (#ISRCTN33368770).

Efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy for sleep improvement in patients with persistent delusions and hallucinations (BEST): a prospective, assessor-blind, randomised controlled pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Sleep disturbance occurs in most patients with delusions or hallucinations and should be treated as a clinical problem in its own right. However, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-the best evidence-based treatment for insomnia-has not been tested in this patient population. We aimed to pilot procedures for a randomised trial testing CBT for sleep problems in patients with current psychotic experiences, and to provide a preliminary assessment of potential benefit.

METHODS

We did this prospective, assessor-blind, randomised controlled pilot trial (Better Sleep Trial [BEST]) at two mental health centres in the UK. Patients (aged 18-65 years) with persistent distressing delusions or hallucinations in the context of insomnia and a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based randomisation system with minimisation to balance for sex, insomnia severity, and psychotic experiences, to receive either eight sessions of CBT plus standard care (medication and contact with the local clinical team) or standard care alone. Research assessors were masked to group allocation. Assessment of outcome was done at weeks 0, 12 (post-treatment), and 24 (follow-up). The primary efficacy outcomes were insomnia assessed by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and delusions and hallucinations assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS) at week 12. We did analysis by intention to treat, with an aim to provide confidence interval estimation of treatment effects. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 33695128.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 14, 2012, and May 22, 2013, and Nov 7, 2013, and Aug 26, 2014, we randomly assigned 50 patients to receive CBT plus standard care (n=24) or standard care alone (n=26). The last assessments were completed on Feb 10, 2015. 48 (96%) patients provided follow-up data. 23 (96%) patients offered CBT took up the intervention. Compared with standard care, CBT led to reductions in insomnia in the large effect size range at week 12 (adjusted mean difference 6.1, 95% CI 3.0-9.2, effect size d=1.9). By week 12, nine (41%) of 22 patients receiving CBT and one (4%) of 25 patients receiving standard care alone no longer had insomnia, with ISI scores lower than the cutoff for insomnia. The treatment effect estimation for CBT covered a range from reducing but also increasing delusions (adjusted mean difference 0.3, 95% CI -2.0 to 2.6) and hallucinations (-1.9, -6.5 to 2.7). Three patients, all in the CBT group, had five adverse events, although none were regarded as related to study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings show that CBT for insomnia might be highly effective for improving sleep in patients with persistent delusions or hallucinations. A larger, suitably powered phase 3 study is now needed to provide a precise estimate of the effects of CBT for sleep problems, both on sleep and psychotic experiences.

FUNDING

Research for Patient Benefit Programme, National Institute for Health Research.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome: report of treatment and outcome after a major outbreak

BACKGROUND

The outcome is reported of a prospective uncontrolled study based on a stepwise treatment protocol during an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Hong Kong.

METHOD

One hundred and thirty eight patients were treated with broad spectrum antibiotics, a combination of ribavirin and low dose corticosteroid, and then intravenous high dose methylprednisolone according to responses. Sustained response to treatment was defined as (1) defervescence for > or =4 consecutive days, (2) resolution of lung consolidation by >25%, and (3) oxygen independence by the fourth day without fever. Patients with defervescence who achieved either criterion 2 or 3 were classified as partial responders. Patients who fell short of criteria 2 and 3 were non-responders.

RESULTS

Laboratory confirmation of SARS coronavirus infection was established in 132 (95.7%). None responded to antibiotics but 25 (18.1%) responded to ribavirin + low dose corticosteroid. Methylprednisolone was used in 107 patients, of whom 95 (88.8%) responded favourably. Evidence of haemolytic anaemia was observed in 49 (36%). A high level of C-reactive protein at presentation was the only independent predictor for use of methylprednisolone (odds ratio 2.18 per 10 mg/dl increase, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 4.25, p = 0.02). Thirty seven patients (26.8%) required admission to the intensive care unit and 21 (15.2%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. There were 15 deaths (mortality rate 10.9%), most with significant co-morbidities, whereas 122 (88.4%) had been discharged home 4 months after the outbreak onset.

CONCLUSION

The use of high dose pulse methylprednisolone during the clinical course of a SARS outbreak was associated with clinical improvement, but randomised controlled trials are needed to ascertain its efficacy in this condition.

A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies

Background

Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.

Methods

Systematic review of software. We did an extensive search on the internet (Google, Yahoo, Altavista, and MSN) for specialized meta-analysis software. We included six programs in our review: Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA), MetAnalysis, MetaWin, MIX, RevMan, and WEasyMA. Two investigators compared the features of the software and their results. Thirty independent researchers evaluated the programs on their usability while analyzing one data set.

Results

The programs differed substantially in features, ease-of-use, and price. Although most results from the programs were identical, we did find some minor numerical inconsistencies. CMA and MIX scored highest on usability and these programs also have the most complete set of analytical features.

Conclusion

In consideration of differences in numerical results, we believe the user community would benefit from openly available and systematically updated information about the procedures and results of each program's validation. The most suitable program for a meta-analysis will depend on the user's needs and preferences and this report provides an overview that should be helpful in making a substantiated choice.