ObjectivesTo see if a group course delivered by rheumatology teams using cognitive-behavioural approaches, plus usual care, reduced RA fatigue impact more than usual care alone.MethodsMulticentre, 2-year randomised controlled trial in RA adults (fatigue severity>6/10, no recent major medication changes). RAFT (Reducing Arthritis Fatigue: clinical Teams using CB approaches) comprises seven sessions, codelivered by pairs of trained rheumatology occupational therapists/nurses. Usual care was Arthritis Research UK fatigue booklet. Primary 26-week outcome fatigue impact (Bristol RA Fatigue Effect Numerical Rating Scale, BRAF-NRS 0–10). Intention-to-treat regression analysis adjusted for baseline scores and centre.Results308/333 randomised patients completed 26 week data (156/175 RAFT, 152/158 Control). Mean baseline variables were similar. At 26 weeks, the adjusted difference between arms for fatigue impact change favoured RAFT (BRAF-NRS Effect −0.59, 95% CI –1.11 to -0.06), BRAF Multidimensional Questionnaire (MDQ) Total −3.42 (95% CI –6.44 to -0.39), Living with Fatigue −1.19 (95% CI –2.17 to -0.21), Emotional Fatigue −0.91 (95% CI –1.58 to -0.23); RA Self-Efficacy (RASE, +3.05, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.66) (14 secondary outcomes unchanged). Effects persisted at 2 years: BRAF-NRS Effect −0.49 (95% CI −0.83 to -0.14), BRAF MDQ Total −2.98 (95% CI −5.39 to -0.57), Living with Fatigue −0.93 (95% CI −1.75 to -0.10), Emotional Fatigue −0.90 (95% CI −1.44, to -0.37); BRAF-NRS Coping +0.42 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) (relevance of fatigue impact improvement uncertain). RAFT satisfaction: 89% scored > 8/10 vs 54% controls rating usual care booklet (p<0.0001).ConclusionMultiple RA fatigue impacts can be improved for 2 years by rheumatology teams delivering a group programme using cognitive behavioural approaches.Trial registration numberISRCTN52709998.

BackgroundProtein 4.1R is an important component of the red cell membrane skeleton. It imparts structural integrity and has transmembrane signaling roles by direct interactions with transmembrane proteins and other membrane skeletal components, notably p55 and calmodulin. Design and MethodsSpontaneous and ligation-induced phosphatidylserine exposure on erythrocytes from two patients with 4.1R deficiency were studied, using CD47 glycoprotein and glycophorin C as ligands. We also looked for protein abnormalities in the 4.1R -based multiprotein complex. ResultsPhosphatidylserine exposure was significantly increased in 4.1R-deficient erythrocytes obtained from the two different individuals when ligands to CD47 glycoprotein were bound. Spontaneous phosphatidylserine exposure was normal. 4.1R, glycophorin C and p55 were missing or sharply reduced. Furthermore there was an alteration or deficiency of CD47 glycoprotein and a lack of CD44 glycoprotein. Based on a recent study in 4.1R-deficient mice, we found that there are clear functional differences between interactions of human red cell 4.1R and its murine counterpart. ConclusionsGlycophorin C is known to bind 4.1R, and we have defined previously that it also binds CD47. From our evidence, we suggest that 4.1R plays a role in the phosphatidylserine exposure signaling pathway that is of fundamental importance in red cell turnover. The linkage of CD44 to 4.1R may be relevant to this process. CD44 and CD47 glycoproteins. Haematologica 2009;94:1354-1361. doi:10.3324/haematol.2009 This is an open-access paper. 4.1R-deficient human red blood cells have altered phosphatidylserine exposure pathways and are deficient in CD44 and CD47 glycoproteins

IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) fatigue is distressing, leading to unmanageable physical and cognitive exhaustion impacting on health, leisure and work. Group cognitive–behavioural (CB) therapy delivered by a clinical psychologist demonstrated large improvements in fatigue impact. However, few rheumatology teams include a clinical psychologist, therefore, this study aims to examine whether conventional rheumatology teams can reproduce similar results, potentially widening intervention availability.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of a group CB intervention for RA fatigue self-management, delivered by local rheumatology clinical teams. 7 centres will each recruit 4 consecutive cohorts of 10–16 patients with RA (fatigue severity ≥6/10). After consenting, patients will have baseline assessments, then usual care (fatigue self-management booklet, discussed for 5–6 min), then be randomised into control (no action) or intervention arms. The intervention, Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams (RAFT) will be cofacilitated by two local rheumatology clinicians (eg, nurse/occupational therapist), who will have had brief training in CB approaches, a RAFT manual and materials, and delivered an observed practice course. Groups of 5–8 patients will attend 6×2 h sessions (weeks 1–6) and a 1 hr consolidation session (week 14) addressing different self-management topics and behaviours. The primary outcome is fatigue impact (26 weeks); secondary outcomes are fatigue severity, coping and multidimensional impact, quality of life, clinical and mood status (to week 104). Statistical and health economic analyses will follow a predetermined plan to establish whether the intervention is clinically and cost-effective. Effects of teaching CB skills to clinicians will be evaluated qualitatively.Ethics and disseminationApproval was given by an NHS Research Ethics Committee, and participants will provide written informed consent. The copyrighted RAFT package will be freely available. Findings will be submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Clinical Commissioning Groups and all UK rheumatology departments.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 52709998; Protocol v3 09.02.2015.

Background Fatigue is a major problem in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is evidence for the clinical effectiveness of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by clinical psychologists, but few rheumatology units have psychologists. Objectives To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group CBT programme for RA fatigue [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive–behavioural (CB) approaches], delivered by the rheumatology team in addition to usual care (intervention), with usual care alone (control); and to evaluate tutors’ experiences of the RAFT programme. Design A randomised controlled trial. Central trials unit computerised randomisation in four consecutive cohorts within each of the seven centres. A nested qualitative evaluation was undertaken. Setting Seven hospital rheumatology units in England and Wales. Participants Adults with RA and fatigue severity of ≥ 6 [out of 10, as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS)] who had no recent changes in major RA medication/glucocorticoids. Interventions RAFT – group CBT programme delivered by rheumatology tutor pairs (nurses/occupational therapists). Usual care – brief discussion of a RA fatigue self-management booklet with the research nurse. Main outcome measures Primary – fatigue impact (as measured by the BRAF-NRS) at 26 weeks. Secondary – fatigue severity/coping (as measured by the BRAF-NRS); broader fatigue impact [as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ)]; self-reported clinical status; quality of life; mood; self-efficacy; and satisfaction. All data were collected at weeks 0, 6, 26, 52, 78 and 104. In addition, fatigue data were collected at weeks 10 and 18. The intention-to-treat analysis conducted was blind to treatment allocation, and adjusted for baseline scores and centre. Cost-effectiveness was explored through the intervention and RA-related health and social care costs, allowing the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). Tutor and focus group interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results A total of 308 out of 333 patients completed 26 weeks (RAFT, n/N = 156/175; control, n/N = 152/158). At 26 weeks, the mean BRAF-NRS impact was reduced for the RAFT programme (–1.36 units; p < 0.001) and the control interventions (–0.88 units; p < 0.004). Regression analysis showed a difference between treatment arms in favour of the RAFT programme [adjusted mean difference –0.59 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.11 to –0.06 units; p = 0.03, effect size 0.36], and this was sustained over 2 years (–0.49 units, 95% CI –0.83 to –0.14 units; p = 0.01). At 26 weeks, further fatigue differences favoured the RAFT programme (BRAF-MDQ fatigue impact: adjusted mean difference –3.42 units, 95% CI –6.44 to – 0.39 units, p = 0.03; living with fatigue: adjusted mean difference –1.19 units, 95% CI –2.17 to –0.21 units, p = 0.02; and emotional fatigue: adjusted mean difference –0.91 units, 95% CI –1.58 to –0.23 units, p = 0.01), and these fatigue differences were sustained over 2 years. Self-efficacy favoured the RAFT programme at 26 weeks (Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale: adjusted mean difference 3.05 units, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.6 units; p = 0.02), as did BRAF-NRS coping over 2 years (adjusted mean difference 0.42 units, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77 units; p = 0.02). Fatigue severity and other clinical outcomes were not different between trial arms and no harms were reported. Satisfaction with the RAFT programme was high, with 89% of patients scoring ≥ 8 out of 10, compared with 54% of patients in the control arm rating the booklet (p < 0.0001); and 96% of patients and 68% of patients recommending the RAFT programme and the booklet, respectively, to others (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between arms for total societal costs including the RAFT programme training and delivery (mean difference £434, 95% CI –£389 to £1258), nor QALYs gained (mean difference 0.008, 95% CI –0.008 to 0.023). The probability of the RAFT programme being cost-effective was 28–35% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s thresholds of £20,000–30,000 per QALY. Tutors felt that the RAFT programme’s CB approaches challenged their usual problem-solving style, helped patients make life changes and improved tutors’ wider clinical practice. Limitations Primary outcome data were missing for 25 patients; the EQ-5D-5L might not capture fatigue change; and 30% of the 2-year economic data were missing. Conclusions The RAFT programme improves RA fatigue impact beyond usual care alone; this was sustained for 2 years with high patient satisfaction, enhanced team skills and no harms. The RAFT programme is < 50% likely to be cost-effective; however, NHS costs were similar between treatment arms. Future work Given the paucity of RA fatigue interventions, rheumatology teams might investigate the pragmatic implementation of the RAFT programme, which is low cost. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52709998. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

No abstract

Propofol supplementation in cardioplegia appears to be cardioprotective. Its influence on early clinical outcomes may differ between CABG and AVR surgery. A larger, multicenter study is needed to confirm or refute these suggestions.

This report should be referenced as follows:Murphy GJ, Mumford AD, Rogers CA, Wordsworth S, Stokes EA, Verheyden V, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic medical devices for safer blood management in cardiac surgery: systematic reviews, observational studies and randomised controlled trials. Programme Grants Appl Res 2017;5(17). Programme Grants for Applied ResearchISSN 2050-4322 (Print) ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0407-10384. The contractual start date was in July 2008. The final report began editorial review in July 2016 and was accepted for publication in April 2017. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded 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 ...

BackgroundDespite improved myocardial protection strategies, cardioplegic arrest and ischemia still result in reperfusion injury. We have previously published a study describing the effects of propofol (an anesthetic agent commonly used in cardiac surgery) on metabolic stress, cardiac function, and injury in a clinically relevant animal model. We concluded that cardioplegia supplementation with propofol at a concentration relevant to the human clinical setting resulted in improved hemodynamic function, reduced oxidative stress, and reduced reperfusion injury when compared to standard cardioplegia.ObjectiveThe Propofol cardioplegia for Myocardial Protection Trial (ProMPT) aims to translate the successful animal intervention to the human clinical setting. We aim to test the hypothesis that supplementation of the cardioplegic solution with propofol will be cardioprotective for patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.MethodsThe trial is a single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized trial with blinding of participants, health care staff, and the research team. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years undergoing nonemergency isolated coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at the Bristol Heart Institute are being invited to participate. Participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either cardioplegia supplementation with propofol (intervention) or cardioplegia supplementation with intralipid (placebo) using a secure, concealed, Internet-based randomization system. Randomization is stratified by operation type and minimized by diabetes mellitus status. Biomarkers of cardiac injury and metabolism are being assessed to investigate any cardioprotection conferred. The primary outcome is myocardial injury, studied by measuring myocardial troponin T. The trial is designed to test hypotheses about the superiority of the intervention within each surgical stratum. The sample size of 96 participants has been chosen to achieve 80% power to detect standardized differences of 0.5 at a significance level of 5% (2-tailed) assuming equal numbers in each surgical stratum.ResultsA total of 96 patients have been successfully recruited over a 2-year period. Results are to be published in late 2014.ConclusionsDesigning a practicable method for delivering a potentially protective dose of propofol to the heart during cardiac surgery was challenging. If our approach confirms the potential of propofol to reduce damage during cardiac surgery, we plan to design a larger multicenter trial to detect differences in clinical outcomes.Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 84968882; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN84968882/ProMPT (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Qi8A51BS).