SummaryBackgroundTrial findings show cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can be effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome, but patients' organisations have reported that these treatments can be harmful and favour pacing and specialist health care. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of all four treatments.MethodsIn our parallel-group randomised trial, patients meeting Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome were recruited from six secondary-care clinics in the UK and randomly allocated by computer-generated sequence to receive specialist medical care (SMC) alone or with adaptive pacing therapy (APT), CBT, or GET. Primary outcomes were fatigue (measured by Chalder fatigue questionnaire score) and physical function (measured by short form-36 subscale score) up to 52 weeks after randomisation, and safety was assessed primarily by recording all serious adverse events, including serious adverse reactions to trial treatments. Primary outcomes were rated by participants, who were necessarily unmasked to treatment assignment; the statistician was masked to treatment assignment for the analysis of primary outcomes. We used longitudinal regression models to compare SMC alone with other treatments, APT with CBT, and APT with GET. The final analysis included all participants for whom we had data for primary outcomes. This trial is registered at http://isrctn.org, number ISRCTN54285094.FindingsWe recruited 641 eligible patients, of whom 160 were assigned to the APT group, 161 to the CBT group, 160 to the GET group, and 160 to the SMC-alone group. Compared with SMC alone, mean fatigue scores at 52 weeks were 3·4 (95% CI 1·8 to 5·0) points lower for CBT (p=0·0001) and 3·2 (1·7 to 4·8) points lower for GET (p=0·0003), but did not differ for APT (0·7 [−0·9 to 2·3] points lower; p=0·38). Compared with SMC alone, mean physical function scores were 7·1 (2·0 to 12·1) points higher for CBT (p=0·0068) and 9·4 (4·4 to 14·4) points higher for GET (p=0·0005), but did not differ for APT (3·4 [−1·6 to 8·4] points lower; p=0·18). Compared with APT, CBT and GET were associated with less fatigue (CBT p=0·0027; GET p=0·0059) and better physical function (CBT p=0·0002; GET p<0·0001). Subgroup analysis of 427 participants meeting international criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome and 329 participants meeting London criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis yielded equivalent results. Serious adverse reactions were recorded in two (1%) of 159 participants in the APT group, three (2%) of 161 in the CBT group, two (1%) of 160 in the GET group, and two (1%) of 160 in the SMC-alone group.InterpretationCBT and GET can safely be added to SMC to moderately improve outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome, but APT is not an effective addition.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions.

UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Cicely Saunders International.

The study suggests that the CAN is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the needs of people with severe mental illness. It is easily learnt by staff from a range of professional backgrounds, and a complete assessment took, on average, around 25 minutes.

This revision of the 2005 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines for the evidence-based pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders provides an update on key steps in diagnosis and clinical management, including recognition, acute treatment, longer-term treatment, combination treatment, and further approaches for patients who have not responded to first-line interventions. A consensus meeting involving international experts in anxiety disorders reviewed the main subject areas and considered the strength of supporting evidence and its clinical implications. The guidelines are based on available evidence, were constructed after extensive feedback from participants, and are presented as recommendations to aid clinical decision-making in primary, secondary and tertiary medical care. They may also serve as a source of information for patients, their carers, and medicines management and formulary committees.

Background Extensive evidence shows that well over 50% of people prefer to be cared for and to die at home provided circumstances allow choice. Despite best efforts and policies, one-third or less of all deaths take place at home in many countries of the world. Objectives 1. To quantify the effect of home palliative care services for adult patients with advanced illness and their family caregivers on patients' odds of dying at home; 2. to examine the clinical effectiveness of home palliative care services on other outcomes for patients and their caregivers such as symptom control, quality of life, caregiver distress and satisfaction with care; 3. to compare the resource use and costs associated with these services; 4. to critically appraise and summarise the current evidence on cost-effectiveness. Search methods We searched 12 electronic databases up to November 2012. We checked the reference lists of all included studies, 49 relevant systematic reviews, four key textbooks and recent conference abstracts. We contacted 17 experts and researchers for unpublished data. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITSs) evaluating the impact of home palliative care services on outcomes for adults with advanced illness or their family caregivers, or both. Data collection and analysis One review author assessed the identified titles and abstracts. Two independent reviewers performed assessment of all potentially relevant studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. We carried out meta-analysis where appropriate and calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTBs) for the primary outcome (death at home). Main results We identified 23 studies (16 RCTs, 6 of high quality), including 37,561 participants and 4042 family caregivers, largely with advanced cancer but also congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), HIV/AIDS and multiple sclerosis (MS), among other conditions. Meta-analysis showed increased odds of dying at home (odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.71; Z = 2.98, P value = 0.003; Chi 2 = 20.57, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, P value = 0.002; I 2 = 71%; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 14 (seven trials with 1222 participants, three of high quality)). In addition, narrative synthesis showed evidence of small but statistically significant beneficial effects of home palliative care services compared to usual care on reducing symptom burden for patients (three trials, two of high quality, and one CBA with 2107 participants) and of no effect on caregiver grief (three RCTs, two of high quality, and one CBA with 2113 caregivers). Evidence on cost-effectiveness (six studies) is inconclusive. Authors' conclusions ...

BackgroundBreathlessness is common in advanced cancer. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease. We sought to establish whether BIS was more effective, and cost-effective, for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care.MethodsA single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed-method randomised controlled trial (RCT) of BIS versus standard care was conducted. Participants were randomised to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). A total of 67 patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 35; control arm n = 32 received BIS after a two-week wait); 54 completed to the key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at two-weeks. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Services Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews.ResultsBIS reduced patient distress due to breathlessness (primary outcome: −1.29; 95% CI −2.57 to −0.005; P = 0.049) significantly more than the control group; 94% of respondents reported a positive impact (51/53). BIS reduced fear and worry, and increased confidence in managing breathlessness. Patients and carers consistently identified specific and repeatable aspects of the BIS model and interventions that helped. How interventions were delivered was important. BIS legitimised breathlessness and increased knowledge whilst making patients and carers feel ‘not alone’. BIS had a 66% likelihood of better outcomes in terms of reduced distress due to breathlessness at lower health/social care costs than standard care (81% with informal care costs included).ConclusionsBIS appears to be more effective and cost-effective in advanced cancer than standard care.Trial registrationRCT registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008) and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0194-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SummaryBackgroundObservational evidence suggests that community-based services for people with schizophrenia can be successfully provided by community health workers, when supervised by specialists, in low-income and middle-income countries. We did the COmmunity care for People with Schizophrenia in India (COPSI) trial to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative community-based care intervention with standard facility-based care.MethodsWe did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at three sites in India between Jan 1, 2009 and Dec 31, 2010. Patients aged 16–60 years with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia according to the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic Criteria for Research (ICD-10-DCR) were randomly assigned (2:1), via a computer-generated randomisation list with block sizes of three, six, or nine, to receive either collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care or facility-based care alone. Randomisation was stratified by study site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was a change in symptoms and disabilities over 12 months, as measured by the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) and the Indian disability evaluation and assessment scale (IDEAS). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 56877013.Findings187 participants were randomised to the collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care group and 95 were randomised to the facility-based care alone group; 253 (90%) participants completed follow-up to month 12. At 12 months, total PANSS and IDEAS scores were lower in patients in the intervention group than in those in the control group (PANSS adjusted mean difference −3·75, 95% CI −7·92 to 0·42; p=0·08; IDEAS −0·95, −1·68 to −0·23; p=0·01). However, no difference was shown in the proportion of participants who had a reduction of more than 20% in overall symptoms (PANSS 85 [51%] in the intervention group vs 44 [51%] in the control group; p=0·89; IDEAS 75 [48%] vs 28 [35%]). We noted a significant reduction in symptom and disability outcomes at the rural Tamil Nadu site (−9·29, −15·41 to −3·17; p=0·003). Two patients (one in each group) died by suicide during the study, and two patients died because of complications of a road traffic accident and pre-existing cardiac disease. 18 (73%) patients (17 in the intervention group) were admitted to hospital during the course of the trial, of whom seven were admitted because of physical health problems, such as acute gastritis and vomiting, road accident, high fever, or cardiovascular disease.InterpretationThe collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care intervention is modestly more effective than facility-based care, especially for reducing disability and symptoms of psychosis. Our results show that the study intervention is best implemented as an initial service in settings where services are scarce, for example in rur...

BackgroundDespite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field.MethodsThe Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC.ResultsWe integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project.ConclusionsThe MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.