Serious adverse events in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

Aims The study estimated serious adverse event (SAE) rates among entrants to pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence, during treatment and after leaving treatment. Design A longitudinal study based on data from 12 trials included in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD). Participants and settings A total of 1.244 heroin users and methadone patients treated in hospital, community and GP settings. Intervention Six trials included detoxification; all included treatment with methadone, buprenorphine, levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM) or naltrexone. Findings During 394 person-years of observation, 79 SAEs of 28 types were recorded. Naltrexone participants experienced 39 overdoses per 100 person-years after leaving treatment (44% occurred within 2 weeks after stopping naltrexone). This was eight times the rate recorded among participants who left agonist treatment. Rates of all other SAEs were similar during treatment versus out of treatment, for both naltrexone-treated and agonist-treated participants. Five deaths occurred, all among participants who had left treatment, at a rate of six per 100 person-years. Total SAE rates during naltrexone and agonist treatments were similar (20, 14 per 100 person-years, respectively). Total SAE and death rates observed among participants who had left treatment were three and 19 times the corresponding rates during treatment. Conclusions Individuals who leave pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence experience higher overdose and death rates compared with those in treatment. This may be due partly to a participant self-selection effect rather than entirely to pharmacotherapy being protective. Clinicians should alert naltrexone treatment patients in particular about heroin overdose risks. Duty of care may extend beyond cessation of dosing.

A smart micro-drill for cochleostomy formation:a comparison of cochlear disturbances with manual drilling and a human trial

Background: Cochleostomy formation is a key stage of the cochlear implantation procedure. Minimizing the trauma sustained by the cochlea during this step is thought to be a critical feature in hearing preservation cochlear implantation. The aim of this paper is firstly, to assess the cochlea disturbances during manual and robotic cochleostomy formation. Secondly, to determine whether the use of a smart micro-drill is feasible during human cochlear implantation. Materials and methods: The disturbances within the cochlea during cochleostomy formation were analysed in a porcine specimen by creating a third window cochleostomy, preserving the underlying endosteal membrane, on the anterior aspect of the basal turn of the cochlea. A laser vibrometer was aimed at this third window, to assess its movement while a traditional cochleostomy was performed. Six cochleostomies were performed in total, three manually and three with a smart micro-drill. The mean and peak membrane movement was calculated for both manual and smart micro-drill arms, to represent the disturbances sustained within cochlea during cochleostomy formation. The smart micro-drill was further used to perform live human robotic cochleostomies on three adult patients who met the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence criteria for undergoing cochlear implantation. Results: In the porcine trial, the smart micro-drill preserved the endosteal membrane in all three cases. The velocity of movement of the endosteal membrane during manual cochleostomy is approximately 20 times higher on average and 100 times greater in peak velocity, than for robotic cochleostomy. The robot was safely utilized in theatre in all three cases and successfully created a bony cochleostomy while preserving the underlying endosteal membrane. Conclusions: Our experiments have revealed that controlling the force of drilling during cochleostomy formation and opening the endosteal membrane with a pick will minimize the trauma sustained by the cochlea by a factor of 20. Additionally, the smart micro-drill can safely perform a bony cochleostomy in humans under operative conditions and preserve the integrity of the underlying endosteal membrane. © W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2013.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia:the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared to usual medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding:the ECLIPSE Trial

Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)

The National Institute of Justice guide for eyewitness identification evidence: Can it improve juror decision-making?

Mistaken eyewitness identifications of innocent lead to more false convictions in the United States than any other cause. In response to concerns about the reliability of eyewitness evidence, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1999 published a Guide for the gathering and preservation of eyewitness evidence by law enforcement personnel. Previous research has shown that eyewitness identifications are more accurate when obtained using procedures recommended in the NIJ Guide. This experiment assessed whether informing jurors about the Guide can improve their ability to discriminate between eyewitness identifications likely to be accurate and those likely to be inaccurate and, if so, how to most effectively provide jurors with such information. ^ Seven hundred sixteen U.S. citizens who reported for criminal jury duty participated. Half of the participant jurors read a summary of an armed robbery trial in which the police followed the NIJ Guide when obtaining an eyewitness identification of the defendant. The other half read about an identical case in which the police did not follow the Guide. Jurors received information about the Guide from a court-appointed expert witness, one of the attorneys in the case, the trial judge, the judge in combination with one of the attorneys, or from no one (in the control groups). Jurors then rendered a verdict in the case and answered questions about the evidence in the case. ^ When an expert witness or the judge (either alone or in combination with one of the attorneys) informed jurors about the Guide, the jurors voted to convict defendants likely to be guilty and to acquit defendants likely to be innocent more often than did uninformed jurors assigned to a control group. These data suggest that informing jurors about the NIJ Guide using expert testimony or instructions from a judge will improve the quality and accuracy of jurors' verdict decisions in cases involving eyewitness identification evidence. However, more research is needed to determine whether the judge will remain an effective source of information about the Guide in a longer, more detailed trial scenario and to learn more about the underlying psychological processes governing the effects observed in this experiment. ^

The feasibility of determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medication organisation devices compared with usual care for older people in a community setting : systematic review, stakeholder focus groups and feasibility randomised controlled trial

This project was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychosocial morbidity in women with abnormal cervical cytology managed by cytological surveillance or initial colposcopy : longitudinal analysis from the TOMBOLA randomised trial

We are grateful for the co-operation and assistance that we received from NHS staff in the co-ordinating centres and clinical sites. We thank the women who participated in TOMBOLA. The TOMBOLA trial was supported by the Medical Research Council (G9700808) and the NHS in England and Scotland. The TOMBOLA Group comprises the following: Grant-holders: University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland: Maggie Cruickshank, Graeme Murray, David Parkin, Louise Smart, Eric Walker, Norman Waugh (Principal Investigator 2004–2008) University of Nottingham and Nottingham NHS, Nottingham, England: Mark Avis, Claire Chilvers, Katherine Fielding, Rob Hammond, David Jenkins, Jane Johnson, Keith Neal, Ian Russell, Rashmi Seth, Dave Whynes University of Dundee and NHS Tayside, Dundee, Tayside: Ian Duncan, Alistair Robertson (deceased) University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada: Julian Little (Principal Investigator 1999–2004) National Cancer Registry, Cork, Ireland: Linda Sharp Bangor University, Bangor, Wales: Ian Russell University of Hull, Hull, England: Leslie G Walker Staff in clinical sites and co-ordinating centres Grampian Breda Anthony, Sarah Bell, Adrienne Bowie, Katrina Brown (deceased), Joe Brown, Kheng Chew, Claire Cochran, Seonaidh Cotton, Jeannie Dean, Kate Dunn, Jane Edwards, David Evans, Julie Fenty, Al Finlayson, Marie Gallagher, Nicola Gray, Maureen Heddle, Alison Innes, Debbie Jobson, Mandy Keillor, Jayne MacGregor, Sheona Mackenzie, Amanda Mackie, Gladys McPherson, Ike Okorocha, Morag Reilly, Joan Rodgers, Alison Thornton, Rachel Yeats Tayside Lindyanne Alexander, Lindsey Buchanan, Susan Henderson, Tine Iterbeke, Susanneke Lucas, Gillian Manderson, Sheila Nicol, Gael Reid, Carol Robinson, Trish Sandilands Nottingham Marg Adrian, Ahmed Al-Sahab, Elaine Bentley, Hazel Brook, Claire Bushby, Rita Cannon, Brenda Cooper, Ruth Dowell, Mark Dunderdale, Dr Gabrawi, Li Guo, Lisa Heideman, Steve Jones, Salli Lawson, Zoë Philips, Christopher Platt, Shakuntala Prabhakaran, John Rippin, Rose Thompson, Elizabeth Williams, Claire Woolley Statistical analysis Seonaidh Cotton, Kirsten Harrild, John Norrie, Linda Sharp External Trial Steering Committee Nicholas Day (chair, 1999–2004), Theresa Marteau (chair 2004-), Mahesh Parmar, Julietta Patnick and Ciaran Woodman.

Action control in dyads : A randomized controlled trial to promote physical activity in everyday life

This project (PP00P1_133632/1), the first author Corina Berli (PP00P1_133632/1 and P2BEP1_158975) and the third author Jennifer Inauen (P2ZHP1_155103) were funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Costs, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of open and arthroscopic repair for rotator cuff tears : economic evaluation alongside the UKUFF trial

FUNDING & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 05/47/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/054702 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Due to the confidential nature of the trial data supporting this publication not all of the data can be made accessible to other researchers. Please contact the UKUFF study principal investigator Andrew Carr (andrew.carr@ndorms.ox.ac.uk) for more information. The authors wish to thank the UKUFF trial collaborators for their contribution in managing the conduct of the trial, and for their comments on the interim economic results: Marion Campbell and Hannah Bruhn (Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, HSRU, University of Aberdeen), Jonathan Rees MD and David Beard (NDORMS, University of Oxford; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre), Jane Moser (NDORMS, University of Oxford), Raymond Fitzpatrick and Jill Dawson (NDPH, University of Oxford).

The feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a structured physical activity intervention for people diagnosed with colorectal cancer : findings from a pilot trial of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care (no rehabilitation) with an embedded qualitative study

Funding This work is supported by the National Institute for Health Research—Health Service and Development Research, Project reference number: NIHR—HS&DR Project:12/5001/09.

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

The VUE study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 11/129/183).

The use of cardiac rehabilitation services to aid the recovery of patients with bowel cancer : a pilot randomised controlled trial with embedded feasibility study

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 4, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial : a randomised controlled trial

Acknowledgements Thank you to all the participants who agreed to take part in the trial. This study was supported NHS Research Scotland (NRS), through Chief Scientist Office (CSO) and the Scottish Mental Health Research Network, and the Clinical Research Network-Mental Health. We are grateful to the Psychosis Research Unit (PRU) Service User Reference Group (SURG) for their consultation regarding the design of the study and contribution to the developments of study related materials. We are grateful to our Independent Trial Steering Committee and Independent Data Monitoring Committee for provided oversight of the trial. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number10/101/02) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Visit the HTA programme website for further project information. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

A cluster randomised trial of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC)

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.