Donepezil for the symptomatic treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials

Background: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) compared with placebo in alleviating manifestations of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Method: A systematic review of individual patient data from Phase II and III double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies of up to 24 weeks and completed by 20 December 1999. The main outcome measures were the ADAS-cog, the CIBIC-plus, and reports of adverse events. Results: A total of 2376 patients from ten trials were randomised to either donepezil 5 mg/day (n = 821), 10 mg/day (n = 662) or placebo (n = 893). Cognitive performance was better in patients receiving donepezil than in patients receiving placebo. At 12 weeks the differences in ADAS-cog scores were 5 mg/day-placebo: - 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 2.6 to - 1.6; p < 0.001], 10 mg/day-placebo: - 2.5 ( - 3.1 to - 2.0; p < 0.001). The corresponding results at 24 weeks were - 2.0 ( - 2.7 to - 1.3; p < 0.001) and - 3.1 ( - 3.9 to - 2.4; p < 0.001). The difference between the 5 and 10 mg/day doses was significant at 24 weeks (p = 0.005). The odds ratios (OR) of improvement on the CIBIC-plus at 12 weeks were: 5 mg/day-placebo 1.8 (1.5 to 2.1; p < 0.001), 10 mg/day-placebo 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p < 0.001). The corresponding values at 24 weeks were 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p = 0.001) and 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Donepezil was well tolerated; adverse events were cholinergic in nature and generally of mild severity and brief in duration. Conclusion: Donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) provides meaningful benefits in alleviating deficits in cognitive and clinician-rated global function in AD patients relative to placebo. Increased improvements in cognition were indicated for the higher dose. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The benefits of providing benefit information in a patient information leaflet

Objective: To examine the effects of providing two different types of written information about medicine benefits in a patient information leaflet (PIL). Setting: Participants were 358 adult volunteers from the general population recruited from a London railway station and central Reading. Method: The study used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were given a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication. They then read an information leaflet about the medicine that contained neither, one, or both benefit statements, and finally completed a number of Likert rating scales. Outcome measures included perceived satisfaction and helpfulness of the information, effectiveness and appropriateness of the medicine, benefit and risk to health, and intention to comply. Key findings: Both types of benefit information led to significantly higher ratings on all of the measures taken. Conclusions: Provision of a relatively short ‘benefit’ statement can significantly improve people’s judgements and intention to take a medicine. The findings are important and timely as the European Union is currently considering reviewing their regulations to allow for the inclusion of limited non-promotional benefit information in PILs.

Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis and comorbid substance misuse: randomised controlled trial

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy in addition to standard care for patients with psychosis and a co-morbid substance use problem. Design Two-centre, open, rater-blind randomised controlled trial Setting UK Secondary Care Participants 327 patients with clinical diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder and DSM-IV diagnoses of drug and/or alcohol dependence or abuse Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy or standard care. Therapy has two phases. Phase one – “motivation building” – concerns engaging the patient, then exploring and resolving ambivalence for change in substance use. Phase two –“Action” – supports and facilitates change using cognitive behavioural approaches. Up to 26 therapy sessions were delivered over one year. Main outcomes The primary outcome was death from any cause or admission to hospital in the 12 months after therapy. Secondary outcomes were frequency and amount of substance use (Timeline Followback), readiness to change, perceived negative consequences of use, psychotic symptom ratings, number and duration of relapses, global assessment of functioning and deliberate self harm, at 12 and 24 months, with additional Timeline Followback assessments at 6 and 18 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat with robust treatment effect estimates. Results 327 participants were randomised. 326 (99.7%) were assessed on the primary outcome, 246 (75.2%) on main secondary outcomes at 24 months. Regarding the primary outcome, there was no beneficial treatment effect on hospital admissions/ death during follow-up, with 20.2% (33/163) of controls and 23.3% (38/163) of the therapy group deceased or admitted (adjusted odds-ratio 1.16; P= 0.579; 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.99). For secondary outcomes there was no treatment effect on frequency of substance use or perceived negative consequences, but a statistically significant effect of therapy on amount used per substance-using day (adjusted odds-ratios: (a) for main substance 1.50; P=0.016; 1.08 to 2.09, (b) all substances 1.48; P=0.017; 1.07 to 2.05). There was a statistically significant treatment effect on readiness to change use at 12 months (adjusted odds-ratio 2.05; P=0.004; 1.26 to 3.31), not maintained at 24 months. There were no treatment effects on assessed clinical outcomes. Conclusions Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy for people with psychosis and substance misuse does not improve outcome in terms of hospitalisation, symptom outcomes or functioning. It does result in a reduction in amount of substance use which is maintained over the year’s follow up. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN14404480

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months’ follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0∙58, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0∙73, 0∙58–0∙91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0∙51, 0∙34–0∙78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

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

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