Search

Background Methods Results Conclusions Given the degenerative nature of the condition, people living with motor neuron disease (MND) experience high levels of psychological distress. The purpose of this research was to investigate the cost‐effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), adapted for the specific needs of this population, for improving quality of life.A trial‐based cost–utility analysis over a 9‐month period was conducted comparing ACT plus usual care (n = 97) versus usual care alone (n = 94) from the perspective of the National Health Service. In the primary analysis, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed using health utilities generated from the EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also carried out.Difference in costs was statistically significant between the two arms, driven mainly by the intervention costs. Effects measured by EQ‐5D‐5L were not statistically significantly different between the two arms. The incremental cost‐effectiveness was above the £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained threshold used in the UK. However, the difference in effects was statistically significant when measured by the McGill Quality of Life‐Revised (MQOL‐R) questionnaire. The intervention was cost‐effective in a subgroup experiencing medium deterioration in motor neuron symptoms.Despite the intervention being cost‐ineffective in the primary analysis, the significant difference in the effects measured by MQOL‐R, the low costs of the intervention, the results in the subgroup analysis, and the fact that ACT was shown to improve the quality of life for people living with MND, suggest that ACT could be incorporated into MND clinical services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This update of the guideline on the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was commissioned by the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and prepared in collaboration with the European Reference Network for Neuromuscular Diseases (ERN EURO‐NMD) and the support of the European Network for the Cure ALS (ENCALS) and the European Organization for Professionals and Patients with ALS (EUpALS). Methods: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the effectiveness of interventions for ALS. Two systematic reviewers from Cochrane Response supported the guideline panel. The working group identified a total of 26 research questions, performed systematic reviews, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and made specific recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided where insufficient evidence was available. Results: A guideline mapping effort revealed only one other ALS guideline that used GRADE methodology (a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guideline). The available evidence was scarce for many research questions. Of the 26 research questions evaluated, the NICE recommendations could be adapted for 8 questions. Other recommendations required updates of existing systematic reviews or de novo reviews. Recommendations were made on currently available disease‐modifying treatments, multidisciplinary care, nutritional and respiratory support, communication aids, psychological support, treatments for common ALS symptoms (e.g., muscle cramps, spasticity, pseudobulbar affect, thick mucus, sialorrhea, pain), and end‐of‐life management. Conclusions: This update of the guideline using GRADE methodology provides a framework for the management of ALS. The treatment landscape is changing rapidly, and further updates will be prepared when additional evidence becomes available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with motor neuron disease (pwMND) are routinely offered gastrostomy feeding tube placement and (non‐invasive and invasive) ventilation to manage the functional decline associated with the disease. This study aimed to synthesise the findings from the qualitative literature to understand how individual, clinical team and organisational factors influence pwMND decisions about these interventions. Methods: The study design was guided by the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREC) statement. The search of five bibliography databases and an extensive supplementary search strategy identified 27 papers that included qualitative accounts of pwMND, caregivers and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of making decisions about gastrostomy and ventilation. The findings from each study were included in a thematic synthesis. Findings: Making decisions about interventions is an emotional rather than simply a functional issue for pwMND. The interventions can signal an end to normality, and increasing dependence, where pwMND consider the balance between quality of life and extending survival. Interactions with multiple HCPs and caregivers can influence the process of decision‐making and the decisions made. These interactions contribute to the autonomy pwMND are able to exert during decision‐making. HCPs can both promote and threaten pwMND perceived agency over decisions through how they approach discussions about these interventions. Though there is uncertainty over the timing of interventions, pwMND who agree to interventions report reaching a tipping point where they accept the need for change. Conclusion: Discussion of gastrostomy and ventilation options generate an emotional response in pwMND. Decisions are the consequence of interactions with multiple external agents, including HCPs treading a complex ethical path when trying to improve health outcomes while respecting pwMND right to autonomy. Future decision support interventions that address the emotional response and seek to support autonomy have the potential to enable pwMND to make informed and timely decisions about gastrostomy placement and ventilation. Patient or Public Contribution: The lead author collaborated with several patient and participant involvement (PPI) groups with regards to the conceptualisation and design of this project. Decisions that have been influenced by discussions with multiple PPI panels include widening the scope of decisions about ventilation in addition to gastrostomy placement and the perceptions of all stakeholders involved (i.e., pwMND, caregivers and HCPs). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]