Primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension are habitually treated with eye drops that lower intraocular pressure. Selective laser trabeculoplasty is a safe alternative but is rarely used as first-line treatment. We compared the two. In this observer-masked, randomised controlled trial treatment-naive patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and no ocular comorbidities were recruited between 2012 and 2014 at six UK hospitals. They were randomly allocated (web-based randomisation) to initial selective laser trabeculoplasty or to eye drops. An objective target intraocular pressure was set according to glaucoma severity. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 3 years (assessed by EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost and cost-effectiveness, disease-specific HRQoL, clinical effectiveness, and safety. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN32038223). Of 718 patients enrolled, 356 were randomised to the selective laser trabeculoplasty and 362 to the eye drops group. 652 (91%) returned the primary outcome questionnaire at 36 months. Average EQ-5D score was 0·89 (SD 0·18) in the selective laser trabeculoplasty group versus 0·90 (SD 0·16) in the eye drops group, with no significant difference (difference 0·01, 95% CI -0·01 to 0·03; p=0·23). At 36 months, 74·2% (95% CI 69·3-78·6) of patients in the selective laser trabeculoplasty group required no drops to maintain intraocular pressure at target. Eyes of patients in the selective laser trabeculoplasty group were within target intracoluar pressure at more visits (93·0%) than in the eye drops group (91·3%), with glaucoma surgery to lower intraocular pressure required in none versus 11 patients. Over 36 months, from an ophthalmology cost perspective, there was a 97% probability of selective laser trabeculoplasty as first treatment being more cost-effective than eye drops first at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Selective laser trabeculoplasty should be offered as a first-line treatment for open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, supporting a change in clinical practice. National Institute for Health Research, Health and Technology Assessment Programme.

Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The ‘Surprise Question’ (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality. Searches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6–80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7–86.3). There was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted. PROSPERO CRD42016046564 .

Multiple primary outcomes may be specified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). When analysing multiple outcomes it’s important to control the family wise error rate (FWER). A popular approach to do this is to adjust the p-values corresponding to each statistical test used to investigate the intervention effects by using the Bonferroni correction. It’s also important to consider the power of the trial to detect true intervention effects. In the context of multiple outcomes, depending on the clinical objective, the power can be defined as: ‘disjunctive power’, the probability of detecting at least one true intervention effect across all the outcomes or ‘marginal power’ the probability of finding a true intervention effect on a nominated outcome. We provide practical recommendations on which method may be used to adjust for multiple comparisons in the sample size calculation and the analysis of RCTs with multiple primary outcomes. We also discuss the implications on the sample size for obtaining 90% disjunctive power and 90% marginal power. We use simulation studies to investigate the disjunctive power, marginal power and FWER obtained after applying Bonferroni, Holm, Hochberg, Dubey/Armitage-Parmar and Stepdown-minP adjustment methods. Different simulation scenarios were constructed by varying the number of outcomes, degree of correlation between the outcomes, intervention effect sizes and proportion of missing data. The Bonferroni and Holm methods provide the same disjunctive power. The Hochberg and Hommel methods provide power gains for the analysis, albeit small, in comparison to the Bonferroni method. The Stepdown-minP procedure performs well for complete data. However, it removes participants with missing values prior to the analysis resulting in a loss of power when there are missing data. The sample size requirement to achieve the desired disjunctive power may be smaller than that required to achieve the desired marginal power. The choice between whether to specify a disjunctive or marginal power should depend on the clincial objective.

Background: Increasing number of people are dying with advanced dementia. Comfort and quality of life are key goals of care. Aims: To describe (1) physical and psychological symptoms, (2) health and social care service utilisation and (3) care at end of life in people with advanced dementia. Design: 9-month prospective cohort study. Setting and participants: Greater London, England, people with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Scale 6e and above) from 14 nursing homes or their own homes. Main outcome measures: At study entry and monthly: prescriptions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pressure sore risk/severity (Waterlow Scale/Stirling Scale, respectively), acute medical events, pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), quality of life (Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia Scale), resource use (Resource Utilization in Dementia Questionnaire and Client Services Receipt Inventory), presence/type of advance care plans, interventions, mortality, place of death and comfort (Symptom Management at End of Life in Dementia Scale). Results: Of 159 potential participants, 85 were recruited (62% alive at end of follow-up). Pain (11% at rest, 61% on movement) and significant agitation (54%) were common and persistent. Aspiration, dyspnoea, septicaemia and pneumonia were more frequent in those who died. In total, 76% had ‘do not resuscitate’ statements, less than 40% advance care plans. Most received primary care visits, there was little input from geriatrics or mental health but contact with emergency paramedics was common. Conclusion: People with advanced dementia lived with distressing symptoms. Service provision was not tailored to their needs. Longitudinal multidisciplinary input could optimise symptom control and quality of life.

Pain is underdetected and undertreated in people with dementia. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of pain in people with dementia admitted to general hospitals and explore the association between pain and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 230 people, aged above 70, with dementia and unplanned medical admissions to 2 UK hospitals. Participants were assessed at baseline and every 4 days for self-reported pain (yes/no question and FACES scale) and observed pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scale [PAINAD]) at movement and at rest, for agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitating Inventory [CMAI]) and BPSD (Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer Disease Scale [BEHAVE-AD]). On admission, 27% of participants self-reported pain rising to 39% on at least 1 occasion during admission. Half of them were able to complete the FACES scale, this proportion decreasing with more severe dementia. Using the PAINAD, 19% had pain at rest and 57% had pain on movement on at least 1 occasion (in 16%, this was persistent throughout the admission). In controlled analyses, pain was not associated with CMAI scores but was strongly associated with total BEHAVE-AD scores, both when pain was assessed on movement (β = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07-0.32, P = 0.002) and at rest (β = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14-0.69, P = 0.003). The association was the strongest for aggression and anxiety. Pain was common in people with dementia admitted to the acute hospital and associated with BPSD. Improved pain management may reduce distressing behaviours and improve the quality of hospital care for people with dementia.

Background: Primary care is the 'first port of call' for weight control advice, creating a need for simple, effective interventions that can be delivered without specialist skills. Ten Top Tips (10TT) is a leaflet based on habit-formation theory that could fill this gap. The aim of the current study was to test the hypothesis that 10TT can achieve significantly greater weight loss over 3 months than ‘usual care’. Methods: A two-arm, individually randomised, controlled trial in primary care. Adults with obesity were identified from 14 primary care providers across England. Patients were randomised to either 10TT or 'usual care' and followed up at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The primary outcome was weight loss at 3 months, assessed by a health professional blinded to group allocation. Difference between arms was assessed using a mixed-effect linear model taking into account the health professionals delivering 10TT, and adjusted for baseline weight. Secondary outcomes included body mass index, waist circumference, the number achieving a 5% weight reduction, clinical markers for potential comorbidities, weight loss over 24 months and basic costs. Results: Five-hundred and thirty-seven participants were randomised to 10TT (n=267) or to ‘usual care' (n=270). Data were available for 389 (72%) participants at 3 months and for 312 (58%) at 24 months. Participants receiving 10TT lost significantly more weight over 3 months than those receiving usual care (mean difference =−0.87kg; 95% confidence interval: −1.47 to −0.27; P=0.004). At 24 months, the 10TT group had maintained their weight loss, but the ‘usual care’ group had lost a similar amount. The basic cost of 10TT was low, that is, around £23 ($32) per participant. Conclusions: The 10TT leaflet delivered through primary care is effective in the short-term and a low-cost option over the longer term. It is the first habit-based intervention to be used in a health service setting and offers a low-intensity alternative to ‘usual care’.