BACKGROUND: It has been estimated that between 25% and 40% of people living with dementia suffer from sleep disturbances, and there are currently no known effective treatments. Sleep disturbances may be the direct result of dementia or due to other comorbidities, such as pain and limited mobility. If carers' sleep is also disturbed, carers too can become tired and stressed, and this sometimes results in the breakdown of care in the home. OBJECTIVES: To design an evidence-based manualised non-pharmacological therapy for sleep disturbances and test it for feasibility and acceptability. DESIGN: A single-blind, randomised, parallel-group feasibility trial, with participants randomised 2\u2009:\u20091 to intervention or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Five memory services in two London NHS trusts and Join Dementia Research (JDR). PARTICIPANTS: The study recruited people with dementia and sleep disturbances (who scored \u2265\u20094 on at least one question on the Sleep Disorders Inventory) and their primary family carers. INTERVENTION: All participants were given an Actiwatch (CamNtech Ltd, Cambridge, UK) to wear to record their sleep patterns for 2 weeks before randomisation. The intervention group received Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives (DREAMS START). This was designed as a six-session, manual-based intervention for carers of people with dementia, delivered by trained and clinically supervised psychology graduates, based on evidence about managing sleep disturbance in people with dementia. It uses the structure of a previous manual-based treatment, STrAtegies for RelaTives (START). Family carers were consulted about structure, content and design. Sessions were interactive, and each involved techniques, tasks to practise between sessions, relaxation and a recapitulation on the previous session. The sessions covered understanding sleep and dementia, making a plan (incorporating information from Actiwatch read-outs and a light box to increase light), daytime activity and routine, difficult night-time behaviours, taking care of your own (carer's) sleep and using the strategies in the future. Carers kept their own manual, light box and relaxation recordings post intervention. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: A statistician created an electronic randomisation list, stratified by site, using random permuted blocks. Those assessing the outcome were blinded to allocation; participants were not blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 3 months. (1) Feasibility, defined as the percentage of eligible people who consented to the study recruitment, with an expected value of 50% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41% to 59%]. (2) Acceptability, defined as the percentage of intervention group participants attending \u2265\u20094 intervention sessions, with an expected value of 75% (95% CI 59% to 87%). The predetermined criterion for progression to the main trial was acceptability of \u2265\u200970%. RESULTS: Of 95 eligible patients referred, 63 (66%, 95% CI 56% to 76%) consented between 4 August 2016 and 24 March 2017: 61 from memory clinics and two from JDR. Of these, 62 participants (65%, 95% CI 55% to 75%) were randomised: 42 to the intervention arm and 20 to the TAU arm. Thirty-seven out of 42 participants (88%, 95% CI 75% to 96%) adhered to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the randomised controlled trial is feasible and that the intervention is acceptable. A higher than expected proportion of eligible patients referred consented to the study and adhered to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Participants were not blinded and were recruited only in London. FUTURE WORK: The results of this trial indicate that a future efficacy trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISCTRN36983298. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust to pay for excess treatment costs from therapist training and supervision and intervention delivery.
\n \n\n \n \nHowever, semantics aside, we think that DXA can indeed serve as a reference standard for measuring muscle mass. Obviously, CT and MRI are advanced techniques that can and have been used to obtain important information such as muscle size/volume and more recently amount and distribution of intra- and intermuscular adipose tissue. Also individual muscles can be assessed separately. However, with respect to muscle mass, the comparison of DXA with CT/MRI is rather difficult because DXA and QCT/MRI measure different physical parameters.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: A critical problem in the clinical management of prostate cancer is that it is highly heterogeneous. Accurate prediction of individual cancer behaviour is therefore not achievable at the time of diagnosis leading to substantial overtreatment. It remains an enigma that, in contrast to breast cancer, unsupervised analyses of global expression profiles have not currently defined robust categories of prostate cancer with distinct clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To devise a novel classification framework for human prostate cancer based on unsupervised mathematical approaches. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our analyses are based on the hypothesis that previous attempts to classify prostate cancer have been unsuccessful because individual samples of prostate cancer frequently have heterogeneous compositions. To address this issue, we applied an unsupervised Bayesian procedure called Latent Process Decomposition to four independent prostate cancer transcriptome datasets obtained using samples from prostatectomy patients and containing between 78 and 182 participants. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical failure was assessed using log-rank analysis and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Application of Latent Process Decomposition identified a common process in all four independent datasets examined. Cancers assigned to this process (designated DESNT cancers) are characterized by low expression of a core set of 45 genes, many encoding proteins involved in the cytoskeleton machinery, ion transport, and cell adhesion. For the three datasets with linked prostate-specific antigen failure data following prostatectomy, patients with DESNT cancer exhibited poor outcome relative to other patients (p=2.65\u00d710-5, p=4.28\u00d710-5, and p=2.98\u00d710-8). When these three datasets were combined the independent predictive value of DESNT membership was p=1.61\u00d710-7 compared with p=1.00\u00d710-5 for Gleason sum. A limitation of the study is that only prediction of prostate-specific antigen failure was examined. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the existence of a novel poor prognosis category of human prostate cancer and will assist in the targeting of therapy, helping avoid treatment-associated morbidity in men with indolent disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer, unlike breast cancer, does not have a robust classification framework. We propose that this failure has occurred because prostate cancer samples selected for analysis frequently have heterozygous compositions (individual samples are made up of many different parts that each have different characteristics). Applying a mathematical approach that can overcome this problem we identify a novel poor prognosis category of human prostate cancer called DESNT.
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVE: To assess whether different trajectories of weight gain since birth influence bone mineral content (BMC) and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) at 7 years of age. STUDY DESIGN: We studied a subsample of 1889 children from the Generation XXI birth cohort who underwent whole-body dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry. Weight trajectories identified through normal mixture modeling for model-based clustering and labeled \"normal weight gain,\" \"weight gain during infancy,\" \"weight gain during childhood,\" and \"persistent weight gain\" were used. Differences in subtotal BMC, aBMD, and size-corrected BMC (scBMC) at age 7 years according to weight trajectories were estimated through analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Compared with the \"normal weight gain\" trajectory, children in the remaining trajectories had significantly greater BMC, aBMD, and scBMC at age 7 years, with the strongest associations for \"persistent weight gain\" (girls [BMC: 674.0 vs 559.8 g, aBMD: 0.677 vs 0.588 g/cm2, scBMC: 640.7 vs 577.4 g], boys [BMC: 689.4 vs 580.8 g, aBMD: 0.682 vs 0.611 g/cm2, scBMC: 633.0 vs 595.6 g]). After adjustment for current weight, and alternatively for fat and lean mass, children with a \"weight gain during childhood\" trajectory had greater BMC and aBMD than those with a \"normal weight gain\" trajectory, although significant differences were restricted to girls (BMC: 601.4 vs 589.2 g, aBMD: 0.618 vs 0.609 g/cm2). CONCLUSION: Overall, children following a trajectory of persistent weight gain since birth had clearly increased bone mass at 7 years, but weight gain seemed slightly more beneficial when it occurred later rather than on a normal trajectory during the first 7 years of life.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues(\u00ae); Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: Primary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with depression who scored \u2265\u200910 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS: Participants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness: 210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care, p\u2009=\u20090.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care, p\u2009=\u20090.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34; p\u2009=\u20090.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs. Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. Qualitative evaluation: participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Clinical prognostic groupings for localised prostate cancers are imprecise, with 30-50% of patients recurring after image-guided radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We aimed to test combined genomic and microenvironmental indices in prostate cancer to improve risk stratification and complement clinical prognostic factors. METHODS: We used DNA-based indices alone or in combination with intra-prostatic hypoxia measurements to develop four prognostic indices in 126 low-risk to intermediate-risk patients (Toronto cohort) who will receive image-guided radiotherapy. We validated these indices in two independent cohorts of 154 (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center cohort [MSKCC] cohort) and 117 (Cambridge cohort) radical prostatectomy specimens from low-risk to high-risk patients. We applied unsupervised and supervised machine learning techniques to the copy-number profiles of 126 pre-image-guided radiotherapy diagnostic biopsies to develop prognostic signatures. Our primary endpoint was the development of a set of prognostic measures capable of stratifying patients for risk of biochemical relapse 5 years after primary treatment. FINDINGS: Biochemical relapse was associated with indices of tumour hypoxia, genomic instability, and genomic subtypes based on multivariate analyses. We identified four genomic subtypes for prostate cancer, which had different 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival. Genomic instability is prognostic for relapse in both image-guided radiotherapy (multivariate analysis hazard ratio [HR] 4\u00b75 [95% CI 2\u00b71-9\u00b78]; p=0\u00b700013; area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] 0\u00b770 [95% CI 0\u00b765-0\u00b776]) and radical prostatectomy (4\u00b70 [1\u00b76-9\u00b77]; p=0\u00b70024; AUC 0\u00b757 [0\u00b752-0\u00b761]) patients with prostate cancer, and its effect is magnified by intratumoral hypoxia (3\u00b78 [1\u00b72-12]; p=0\u00b7019; AUC 0\u00b767 [0\u00b761-0\u00b773]). A novel 100-loci DNA signature accurately classified treatment outcome in the MSKCC low-risk to intermediate-risk cohort (multivariate analysis HR 6\u00b71 [95% CI 2\u00b70-19]; p=0\u00b70015; AUC 0\u00b774 [95% CI 0\u00b765-0\u00b783]). In the independent MSKCC and Cambridge cohorts, this signature identified low-risk to high-risk patients who were most likely to fail treatment within 18 months (combined cohorts multivariate analysis HR 2\u00b79 [95% CI 1\u00b74-6\u00b70]; p=0\u00b70039; AUC 0\u00b768 [95% CI 0\u00b763-0\u00b773]), and was better at predicting biochemical relapse than 23 previously published RNA signatures. INTERPRETATION: This is the first study of cancer outcome to integrate DNA-based and microenvironment-based failure indices to predict patient outcome. Patients exhibiting these aggressive features after biopsy should be entered into treatment intensification trials. FUNDING: Movember Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Canadian Institute for Health Research, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Cancer Charity, Prostate Cancer UK, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, Terry Fox Research Institute, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Foundation, PMH-Radiation Medicine Program Academic Enrichment Fund, Motorcycle Ride for Dad (Durham), Canadian Cancer Society.
\n \n\n \n \n