42 results on '"Vasconcelos, Joana C."'
Search Results
2. National prevalence of vision impairment and blindness and associated risk factors in adults aged 40 years and older with known or undiagnosed diabetes: results from the SMART-India cross-sectional study
- Author
-
Bhende, Pramod, Surya, Janani, Gopal, Lingam, Ramakrishnan, Radha, Roy, Rupak, Das, Supita, Manayath, George, Prabhakaran, Vignesh T, Anantharaman, Giridhar, Gopalakrishnan, Mahesh, Natarajan, Sundaram, Krishnan, Radhika, Mani, Sheena Liz, Agarwal, Manisha, Behera, Umesh, Bhattacharjee, Harsha, Barman, Manabjyoti, Sen, Alok, Saxena, Moneesh, Sil, Asim K, Chakabarty, Subhratanu, Cherian, Thomas, Jitesh, Reesha, Naigaonkar, Rushikesh, Desai, Abishek, Kulkarni, Sucheta, Mohan, Deepa, Chawla, Gajendra, Gurudas, Sarega, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Prevost, A Toby, Raman, Rajiv, Rajalakshmi, Ramachandran, Ramasamy, Kim, Mohan, Viswanathan, Rani, Padmaja K, Das, Taraprasad, Conroy, Dolores, Tapp, Robyn J, and Sivaprasad, Sobha
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial
- Author
-
Norton, Sam, Lempp, Heidi, Opena, Maria, Subesinghe, Sujith, Garrood, Toby, Menon, Bina, Ng, Nora, Douglas, Karen, Koutsianas, Christos, Cooles, Faye, Falahee, Marie, Echavez-Naguicnic, Irene, Bharadwaj, Anurag, Villaruel, Michael, Pande, Ira, Collins, David, Pegler, Suzannah, Raizada, Sabrina, Siebert, Stefan, Fragoulis, George, Guinto, Jesusa, Galloway, James, Rutherford, Andrew, Barnes, Theresa, Jeffrey, Helen, Patel, Yusuf, Batley, Michael, O'Reilly, Brendan, Venkatachalam, Srivinisan, Sheeran, Thomas, Gorman, Claire, Reynolds, Piero, Khan, Asad, Gullick, Nicola, Banerjee, Siwalik, Mankia, Kulveer, Jordan, Deepak, Rowlands, Jane, Starmans-Kool, Mirian, Taylor, James, Nandi, Pradip, Sahbudin, Ilfita, Maybury, Mark, Hider, Samantha, Barcroft, Ann, McNally, Jeremy, Kitchen, Jo, Nisar, Muhammad, Quick, Vanessa, Cope, Andrew P, Jasenecova, Marianna, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Filer, Andrew, Raza, Karim, Qureshi, Sumera, D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta, McInnes, Iain B, Isaacs, John D, Pratt, Arthur G, Fisher, Benjamin A, Buckley, Christopher D, Emery, Paul, Ho, Pauline, Buch, Maya H, Ciurtin, Coziana, van Schaardenburg, Dirkjan, Huizinga, Thomas, Toes, René, Georgiou, Evangelos, Kelly, Joanna, Murphy, Caroline, and Prevost, A Toby
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in India stratified by known and undiagnosed diabetes, urban–rural locations, and socioeconomic indices: results from the SMART India population-based cross-sectional screening study
- Author
-
Bhende, Pramod, Surya, Janani, Gopal, Lingam, Ramakrishnan, Radha, Roy, Rupak, Das, Supita, Manayath, George, Pooleeswaran, Vignesh T, Anantharaman, Giridhar, Gopalakrishnan, Mahesh, Natarajan, Sundaram, Krishnan, Radhika, Mani, Sheena Liz, Agarwal, Manisha, Behera, Umesh, Bhattacharjee, Harsha, Barman, Manabjyoti, Sen, Alok, Saxena, Moneesh, Sil, Asim K, Chakrabarty, Subhratanu, Cherian, Thomas, Jitesh, Reesha, Naigaonkar, Rushikesh, Desai, Abishek, Kulkarni, Sucheta, Raman, Rajiv, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Rajalakshmi, Ramachandran, Prevost, A Toby, Ramasamy, Kim, Mohan, Viswanathan, Mohan, Deepa, Rani, Padmaja K, Conroy, Dolores, Das, Taraprasad, and Sivaprasad, Sobha
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study
- Author
-
Pennington, Becky, Alshreef, Abualbishr, Flight, Laura, Metry, Andrew, Poku, Edith, Hykin, Philip, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Prevost, A. Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, Yang, Yit, Lotery, Andrew, Williams, Michael, and Brazier, John
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial
- Author
-
Cope, Andrew P, Jasenecova, Marianna, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Filer, Andrew, Raza, Karim, Qureshi, Sumera, D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta, Mcinnes, Iain B, Isaacs, John D, Pratt, Arthur G, Fisher, Benjamin A, Buckley, Christopher D, Emery, Paul, Ho, Pauline, Buch, Maya H, Ciurtin, Coziana, van Schaardenburg, Dirkjan, Huizinga, Thoma, Toes, René, Georgiou, Evangelo, Kelly, Joanna, Murphy, Caroline, Prevost, A Toby, Norton, Sam, Lempp, Heidi, Opena, Maria, Subesinghe, Sujith, Garrood, Toby, Menon, Bina, Ng, Nora, Douglas, Karen, Koutsianas, Christo, Cooles, Faye, Falahee, Marie, Echavez-Naguicnic, Irene, Bharadwaj, Anurag, Villaruel, Michael, Pande, Ira, Collins, David, Pegler, Suzannah, Raizada, Sabrina, Siebert, Stefan, Fragoulis, George, Guinto, Jesusa, Galloway, Jame, Rutherford, Andrew, Barnes, Theresa, Jeffrey, Helen, Patel, Yusuf, Batley, Michael, O'Reilly, Brendan, Venkatachalam, Srivinisan, Sheeran, Thoma, Gorman, Claire, Reynolds, Piero, Khan, Asad, Gullick, Nicola, Banerjee, Siwalik, Mankia, Kulveer, Jordan, Deepak, Rowlands, Jane, Starmans-Kool, Mirian, Taylor, Jame, Nandi, Pradip, Sahbudin, Ilfita, Maybury, Mark, Hider, Samantha, Barcroft, Ann, Mcnally, Jeremy, Kitchen, Jo, Nisar, Muhammad, Quick, Vanessa, D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta (ORCID:0000-0002-5347-0060), Cope, Andrew P, Jasenecova, Marianna, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Filer, Andrew, Raza, Karim, Qureshi, Sumera, D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta, Mcinnes, Iain B, Isaacs, John D, Pratt, Arthur G, Fisher, Benjamin A, Buckley, Christopher D, Emery, Paul, Ho, Pauline, Buch, Maya H, Ciurtin, Coziana, van Schaardenburg, Dirkjan, Huizinga, Thoma, Toes, René, Georgiou, Evangelo, Kelly, Joanna, Murphy, Caroline, Prevost, A Toby, Norton, Sam, Lempp, Heidi, Opena, Maria, Subesinghe, Sujith, Garrood, Toby, Menon, Bina, Ng, Nora, Douglas, Karen, Koutsianas, Christo, Cooles, Faye, Falahee, Marie, Echavez-Naguicnic, Irene, Bharadwaj, Anurag, Villaruel, Michael, Pande, Ira, Collins, David, Pegler, Suzannah, Raizada, Sabrina, Siebert, Stefan, Fragoulis, George, Guinto, Jesusa, Galloway, Jame, Rutherford, Andrew, Barnes, Theresa, Jeffrey, Helen, Patel, Yusuf, Batley, Michael, O'Reilly, Brendan, Venkatachalam, Srivinisan, Sheeran, Thoma, Gorman, Claire, Reynolds, Piero, Khan, Asad, Gullick, Nicola, Banerjee, Siwalik, Mankia, Kulveer, Jordan, Deepak, Rowlands, Jane, Starmans-Kool, Mirian, Taylor, Jame, Nandi, Pradip, Sahbudin, Ilfita, Maybury, Mark, Hider, Samantha, Barcroft, Ann, Mcnally, Jeremy, Kitchen, Jo, Nisar, Muhammad, Quick, Vanessa, and D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta (ORCID:0000-0002-5347-0060)
- Abstract
Background: Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. Methods: The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013-003413-18). Findings: Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for el
- Published
- 2024
7. National prevalence of vision impairment and blindness and associated risk factors in adults aged 40 years and older with known or undiagnosed diabetes: results from the SMART-India cross-sectional study
- Author
-
Gurudas, Sarega, primary, Vasconcelos, Joana C, additional, Prevost, A Toby, additional, Raman, Rajiv, additional, Rajalakshmi, Ramachandran, additional, Ramasamy, Kim, additional, Mohan, Viswanathan, additional, Rani, Padmaja K, additional, Das, Taraprasad, additional, Conroy, Dolores, additional, Tapp, Robyn J, additional, Sivaprasad, Sobha, additional, Bhende, Pramod, additional, Surya, Janani, additional, Gopal, Lingam, additional, Ramakrishnan, Radha, additional, Roy, Rupak, additional, Das, Supita, additional, Manayath, George, additional, Prabhakaran, Vignesh T, additional, Anantharaman, Giridhar, additional, Gopalakrishnan, Mahesh, additional, Natarajan, Sundaram, additional, Krishnan, Radhika, additional, Mani, Sheena Liz, additional, Agarwal, Manisha, additional, Behera, Umesh, additional, Bhattacharjee, Harsha, additional, Barman, Manabjyoti, additional, Sen, Alok, additional, Saxena, Moneesh, additional, Sil, Asim K, additional, Chakabarty, Subhratanu, additional, Cherian, Thomas, additional, Jitesh, Reesha, additional, Naigaonkar, Rushikesh, additional, Desai, Abishek, additional, Kulkarni, Sucheta, additional, Mohan, Deepa, additional, and Chawla, Gajendra, additional
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial
- Author
-
Cope, Andrew P, primary, Jasenecova, Marianna, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C, additional, Filer, Andrew, additional, Raza, Karim, additional, Qureshi, Sumera, additional, D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta, additional, McInnes, Iain B, additional, Isaacs, John D, additional, Pratt, Arthur G, additional, Fisher, Benjamin A, additional, Buckley, Christopher D, additional, Emery, Paul, additional, Ho, Pauline, additional, Buch, Maya H, additional, Ciurtin, Coziana, additional, van Schaardenburg, Dirkjan, additional, Huizinga, Thomas, additional, Toes, René, additional, Georgiou, Evangelos, additional, Kelly, Joanna, additional, Murphy, Caroline, additional, Prevost, A Toby, additional, Norton, Sam, additional, Lempp, Heidi, additional, Opena, Maria, additional, Subesinghe, Sujith, additional, Garrood, Toby, additional, Menon, Bina, additional, Ng, Nora, additional, Douglas, Karen, additional, Koutsianas, Christos, additional, Cooles, Faye, additional, Falahee, Marie, additional, Echavez-Naguicnic, Irene, additional, Bharadwaj, Anurag, additional, Villaruel, Michael, additional, Pande, Ira, additional, Collins, David, additional, Pegler, Suzannah, additional, Raizada, Sabrina, additional, Siebert, Stefan, additional, Fragoulis, George, additional, Guinto, Jesusa, additional, Galloway, James, additional, Rutherford, Andrew, additional, Barnes, Theresa, additional, Jeffrey, Helen, additional, Patel, Yusuf, additional, Batley, Michael, additional, O'Reilly, Brendan, additional, Venkatachalam, Srivinisan, additional, Sheeran, Thomas, additional, Gorman, Claire, additional, Reynolds, Piero, additional, Khan, Asad, additional, Gullick, Nicola, additional, Banerjee, Siwalik, additional, Mankia, Kulveer, additional, Jordan, Deepak, additional, Rowlands, Jane, additional, Starmans-Kool, Mirian, additional, Taylor, James, additional, Nandi, Pradip, additional, Sahbudin, Ilfita, additional, Maybury, Mark, additional, Hider, Samantha, additional, Barcroft, Ann, additional, McNally, Jeremy, additional, Kitchen, Jo, additional, Nisar, Muhammad, additional, and Quick, Vanessa, additional
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Increase in Colonic PRopionate as a Method of prEVENTing Weight Gain Over 12 Months in Adults Aged 20–40 Years ((iPREVENT): A Multi-Centre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Parallel-Group Trial
- Author
-
Pugh, Jennifer E., primary, Petropoulou, Katerina, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Anjum, Aisha, additional, Thom, George, additional, Mccombie, Louise, additional, Tashkova, Martina, additional, Alshehhi, Sumayya, additional, Babalis, Daphne, additional, Holroyd, Leah, additional, Sadiq, Barzan A., additional, Prechtl, Christina, additional, Preston, Tom, additional, Lean, Michael EJ, additional, Dhillo, Waljit, additional, Prevost, A. Toby, additional, Morrison, Douglas, additional, and Frost, Gary, additional
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Clinical efficacy and safety of a light mask for prevention of dark adaptation in treating and preventing progression of early diabetic macular oedema at 24 months (CLEOPATRA): a multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
- Author
-
Ahfat, Frank, Bhatnagar, Ajay, Narendran, Nirodhini, Chavan, Randhir, Cole, Abosede, Crosby-Nwaobi, Roxanne, Patrao, Namritha, Menon, Deepthy, Hogg, Chris, Rubin, Gary, Leitch-Devlin, Lauren, Egan, Catherine, Shah, Nisha, Mansour, Tatiana, Peto, Tunde, Eleftheriadis, Haralabos, Gibson, Joanathan, Ghulakhszian, Arevik, Vafidis, Gilli, Hughes, Edward, Jafree, Afsar, Menon, Geeta, Prakash, Priya, Sandinha, Maria, Smith, Richard, Scanlon, Peter, Chave, Steve, Aldington, Steve, Dale, Angela, Hood, Gillian, Hitman, Graham A, Crabb, David, Denniston, Alaistair, Lewin, Douglas, Grierson, Ian, Walker, Sarah, Sturt, Jackie, Sahu, Debendra, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Prevost, A Toby, Holmes, Helen, Hykin, Philip, George, Sheena, Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, and Arden, Geoffrey B
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial
- Author
-
Bhatnagar, A, Burton, B, Chakravarthy, U, Eleftheriadis, H, Empeslidis, T, Gale, R, George, S, Habib, M, Kelly, S, Lotery, A, McKibbin, M, Membrey, L, Menon, G, Mushtaq, B, Nicholson, L, Ramu, J, Osoba, O, Patel, J, Prakash, P, Purbrick, R, Ross, A, Stylianides, A, Talks, J, Harding, S, Peto, T, Yeo, S T, Laidlaw, Alistair, Amoaku, Winfried, Hood, Gillian, Hitman, Graham A, Preece, Daniel, Burns, Paul, Walker, Sarah, Mensah, Evelyn, Karia, Niral, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Prevost, A Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Riddell, Amy, Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, Bainbridge, James, Tudor-Edwards, Rhiannon, Hopkins, David, and Hykin, Philip
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Correction to: Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study
- Author
-
Pennington, Becky, Alshreef, Abualbishr, Flight, Laura, Metry, Andrew, Poku, Edith, Hykin, Philip, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Prevost, A. Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, Yang, Yit, Lotery, Andrew, Williams, Michael, and Brazier, John
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of RA with abatacept (the APIPPRA study): a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial protocol
- Author
-
Al-Laith, Mariam, Jasenecova, Marianna, Abraham, Sonya, Bosworth, Aisla, Bruce, Ian N., Buckley, Christopher D., Ciurtin, Coziana, D’Agostino, Maria-Antonietta, Emery, Paul, Gaston, Hill, Isaacs, John D., Filer, Andrew, Fisher, Benjamin A., Huizinga, Thomas W. J., Ho, Pauline, Jacklin, Clare, Lempp, Heidi, McInnes, Iain B., Pratt, Arthur G., Östor, Andrew, Raza, Karim, Taylor, Peter C., van Schaardenburg, Dirkjan, Shivapatham, Dharshene, Wright, Alison J., Vasconcelos, Joana C., Kelly, Joanna, Murphy, Caroline, Prevost, A. Toby, and Cope, Andrew P.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. Burden of undiagnosed and suboptimally controlled diabetes in selected regions of India: Results from the SMART India population‐level diabetes screening study.
- Author
-
Rajalakshmi, Ramachandran, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Prevost, A. Toby, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Deepa, Mohan, Raman, Rajiv, Ramasamy, Kim, Anjana, Ranjit Mohan, Conroy, Dolores, Das, Taraprasad, Hanif, Wasim, Mohan, Viswanathan, Bhende, Pramod, Surya, Janani, Ramakrishnan, Radha, Roy, Rupak, Das, Supita, Manayath, George, Prabhakaran, Vignesh T., and Anantharaman, Giridhar
- Subjects
- *
DIABETES risk factors , *RESEARCH , *CONFIDENCE intervals , *CROSS-sectional method , *DIABETES , *MEDICAL screening , *DESCRIPTIVE statistics , *RESEARCH funding , *JUDGMENT sampling - Abstract
Aims: To estimate the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and suboptimally controlled diabetes and the associated risk factors by community screening in India. Methods: In this multi‐centre, cross‐sectional study, house‐to‐house screening was conducted in people aged ≥40 years in urban and rural areas across 10 states and one union territory in India between November 2018 and March 2020. Participants underwent anthropometry, clinical and biochemical assessments. Capillary random blood glucose and point‐of‐care glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were used to diagnose diabetes. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and suboptimal control (HbA1c ≥53 mmol/mol [≥7%]) among those with known diabetes was assessed. Results: Among the 42,146 participants screened (22,150 urban, 19,996 rural), 5689 had known diabetes. The age‐standardised prevalence of known diabetes was 13.1% (95% CI 12.8–13.4); 17.2% in urban areas and 9.4% in rural areas. The age‐standardised prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was 6.0% (95% CI 5.7–6.2); similar in both urban and rural areas with the highest proportions seen in the East (8.0%) and South (7.8%) regions. When we consider all people with diabetes in the population, 22.8% of individuals in urban areas and 36.7% in rural areas had undiagnosed diabetes. Almost 75% of the individuals with known diabetes had suboptimal glycaemic control. Conclusions: High prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and suboptimally controlled diabetes emphasises the urgent need to identify and optimally treat people with diabetes to reduce the burden of diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in India stratified by known and undiagnosed diabetes, urban–rural locations, and socioeconomic indices: results from the SMART India population-based cross-sectional screening study
- Author
-
Raman, Rajiv, primary, Vasconcelos, Joana C, additional, Rajalakshmi, Ramachandran, additional, Prevost, A Toby, additional, Ramasamy, Kim, additional, Mohan, Viswanathan, additional, Mohan, Deepa, additional, Rani, Padmaja K, additional, Conroy, Dolores, additional, Das, Taraprasad, additional, Sivaprasad, Sobha, additional, Bhende, Pramod, additional, Surya, Janani, additional, Gopal, Lingam, additional, Ramakrishnan, Radha, additional, Roy, Rupak, additional, Das, Supita, additional, Manayath, George, additional, Pooleeswaran, Vignesh T, additional, Anantharaman, Giridhar, additional, Gopalakrishnan, Mahesh, additional, Natarajan, Sundaram, additional, Krishnan, Radhika, additional, Mani, Sheena Liz, additional, Agarwal, Manisha, additional, Behera, Umesh, additional, Bhattacharjee, Harsha, additional, Barman, Manabjyoti, additional, Sen, Alok, additional, Saxena, Moneesh, additional, Sil, Asim K, additional, Chakrabarty, Subhratanu, additional, Cherian, Thomas, additional, Jitesh, Reesha, additional, Naigaonkar, Rushikesh, additional, Desai, Abishek, additional, and Kulkarni, Sucheta, additional
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. Increase in colonic PRopionate as a method of prEVENTing weight gain in adults aged 20–40 years (iPREVENT): A multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study to investigate the efficacy of inulin-propionate ester versus inulin (control) in the prevention of weight gain over 12 months
- Author
-
Pugh, Jennifer E, primary, Anjum, Aisha, additional, Petropoulou, Katerina, additional, Thom, George, additional, Mccombie, Louise, additional, Tashkova, Martina, additional, Alaraj-Alshehhi, Sumayya, additional, Babalis, Daphne, additional, Prechtl, Christina, additional, Lean, Mike J, additional, Prevost, A. Toby, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Preston, Tom, additional, Morrison, Douglas, additional, and Frost, Gary, additional
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial
- Author
-
Marteau, Theresa M, Mann, Eleanor, Prevost, A Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Kellar, lan, Sanderson, Simon, Parker, Michael, Griffin, Simon, Sutton, Stephen, and Kinmonth, Ann Louise
- Published
- 2010
18. Correction to:Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study (PharmacoEconomics, (2021), 10.1007/s40273-021-01026-5)
- Author
-
Pennington, Becky, Alshreef, Abualbishr, Flight, Laura, Metry, Andrew, Poku, Edith, Hykin, Philip, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Prevost, A. Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, Yang, Yit, Lotery, Andrew, Williams, Michael, and Brazier, John
- Subjects
Pharmacology ,SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being ,Health Policy ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health - Abstract
The article Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study,written by Becky Pennington, Abualbishr Alshreef, Laura Flight, Andrew Metry, Edith Poku, Philip Hykin, Sobha Sivaprasad, A. Toby Prevost , Joana C. Vasconcelos, Caroline Murphy, Joanna Kelly , Yit Yang, Andrew Lotery, Michael Williams and John Brazier was published under the incorrect Creative Commons (CC) license (CC-BY-NC). The correct license is CC-BY. Open access for this paper was funded by the NIHR HTA programme through Moorfields Eye Hospital.
- Published
- 2021
19. Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT
- Author
-
Hykin, Philip, primary, Prevost, A Toby, additional, Sivaprasad, Sobha, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C, additional, Murphy, Caroline, additional, Kelly, Joanna, additional, Ramu, Jayashree, additional, Alshreef, Abualbishr, additional, Flight, Laura, additional, Pennington, Rebekah, additional, Hounsome, Barry, additional, Lever, Ellen, additional, Metry, Andrew, additional, Poku, Edith, additional, Yang, Yit, additional, Harding, Simon P, additional, Lotery, Andrew, additional, Chakravarthy, Usha, additional, and Brazier, John, additional
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
20. Patientsʼ perspective of botulinum toxin-A as a long-term treatment option for neurogenic detrusor overactivity secondary to spinal cord injury
- Author
-
Hori, Satoshi, Patki, Prasad, Attar, Kaka H., Ismail, Soran, Vasconcelos, Joana C., and Shah, Julian P. R.
- Published
- 2009
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
21. ntravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT.
- Author
-
Hykin, Philip, Prevost, A. Toby, Sivaprasad, Sobha, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, Ramu, Jayashree, Alshreef, Abualbishr, Flight, Laura, Pennington, Rebekah, Hounsome, Barry, Lever, Ellen, Metry, Andrew, Poku, Edith, Yang, Yit, Harding, Simon P., Lotery, Andrew, Chakravarthy, Usha, and Brazier, John
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
22. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks (VBI Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
- Author
-
Mitchell, Joanna, Hardeman, Wendy, Pears, Sally, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Prevost, A Toby, Wilson, Ed, Sutton, Stephen, VBI Research Team, Proctor, Joanna [0000-0003-2138-3402], Wilson, Ed [0000-0002-8369-1577], Sutton, Stephen [0000-0003-1610-0404], and Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
- Subjects
Time Factors ,Cost-Benefit Analysis ,Health Status ,Health Behavior ,Fitness Trackers ,State Medicine ,Clinical Protocols ,Patient Education as Topic ,Accelerometry ,Very brief intervention ,Humans ,Exercise ,Primary health care ,Randomised controlled trial ,Physical activity ,Cost-effectiveness analysis ,Health Care Costs ,Actigraphy ,Primary Prevention ,Self Care ,Treatment Outcome ,England ,Cardiovascular Diseases ,Research Design ,Pedometer ,Risk Reduction Behavior - Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity interventions that are targeted at individuals can be effective in encouraging people to be more physically active. However, most such interventions are too long or complex and not scalable to the general population. This trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention when delivered as part of preventative health checks in primary care (National Health Service (NHS) Health Check). METHODS/DESIGN: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial is a two parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation and follow-up at 3 months. A total of 1,140 participants will be recruited from 23 primary care practices in the east of England. Participants eligible for an NHS Health Check and who are considered suitable to take part by their doctor and able to provide written informed consent are eligible for the trial. Participants are randomly assigned at the beginning of the NHS Health Check to either 1) the control arm, in which they receive only the NHS Health Check, or 2) the intervention arm, in which they receive the NHS Health Check plus 'Step It Up' (a very brief intervention that can be delivered in 5 minutes by nurses and/or healthcare assistants at the end of the Health Check). 'Step It Up' includes (1) a face-to-face discussion, including feedback on current activity level, recommendations for physical activity, and information on how to use a pedometer, set step goals, and monitor progress; (2) written material supporting the discussion and tips and links to further resources to help increase physical activity; and (3) a pedometer to wear and a step chart for monitoring progress. The primary outcome is accelerometer counts per minute at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the time spent in the different levels of physical activity, self-reported physical activity and economic measures. Trial recruitment is underway. DISCUSSION: The VBI trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Step It Up intervention delivered during NHS Health Checks and will inform policy decisions about introducing very brief interventions into routine primary care practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN72691150 . Registered on 17 July 2014.
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
23. Arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of RA with abatacept (the APIPPRA study): a multi-centre, randomised, double blind, parallel group placebo-controlled clinical trial Protocol
- Author
-
Al-Laith, Mariam, primary, Jasenecova, Marianna, additional, Abraham, Sonya, additional, Bosworth, Aisla, additional, Bruce, Ian N., additional, Buckley, Christopher D., additional, Ciurtin, Coziana, additional, D’Agostino, Maria-Antonietta, additional, Emery, Paul, additional, Gaston, Hill, additional, Isaacs, John D., additional, Filer, Andrew, additional, Fisher, Benjamin A., additional, Huizinga, Thomas W. J., additional, Ho, Pauline, additional, Jacklin, Clare, additional, Lempp, Heidi, additional, McInnes, Iain B., additional, Pratt, Arthur G., additional, Östor, Andrew, additional, Raza, Karim, additional, Taylor, Peter C., additional, Schaardenburg, Dirkjan van, additional, Shivapatham, Dharshene, additional, Wright, Alison J., additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Kelly, Joanna, additional, Murphy, Caroline, additional, Prevost, A. Toby, additional, and Cope, Andrew P., additional
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
24. Arthritis Prevention in the Pre-Clinical Phase of RA with Abatacept (the APIPPRA Study): A Multi-Centre, Randomised, Double Blind, Parallel Group Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial
- Author
-
Al-Laith, Mariam, primary, Jasenecova, Marianna, additional, Abraham, Sonya, additional, Bosworth, Aisla, additional, Bruce, Ian N., additional, Buckley, Christopher D., additional, Ciurtin, Coziana, additional, D’Agostino, Maria-Antonietta, additional, Emery, Paul, additional, Gaston, Hill, additional, Isaacs, John D., additional, Filer, Andrew, additional, Fisher, Benjamin A., additional, Huizinga, Thomas W. J., additional, Ho, Pauline, additional, Jacklin, Clare, additional, Lempp, Heidi, additional, McInnes, Iain B., additional, Pratt, Arthur G., additional, Östor, Andrew, additional, Raza, Karim, additional, Taylor, Peter C., additional, Schaardenburg, Dirkjan van, additional, Shivapatham, Dharshene, additional, Wright, Alison J., additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Kelly, Joanna, additional, Murphy, Caroline, additional, Prevost, A. Toby, additional, and Cope, Andrew P., additional
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
25. Patterns of complementary and alternative medicine use amongst outpatients in Tokyo, Japan
- Author
-
Vasconcelos Joana C, Mihaylov Iordan, Hori Satoshi, and McCoubrie Malcolm
- Subjects
Other systems of medicine ,RZ201-999 - Abstract
Abstract Background The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been increasing rapidly throughout the world during the past decade. The use of CAM in the general Japanese population has been previously reported to be as high as 76%. This study aims to investigate the patterns of CAM use, perceived effectiveness and disclosure of CAM use to orthodox medical practitioners amongst patients attending typical primary and secondary care clinics in a busy district general hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Methods The authors analysed data collected during March 2002 on patients attending general outpatient clinics held at Shiseikai Daini Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Data was collected by use of self-completed questionnaires distributed to patients in the outpatient clinics waiting area. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests of independence. Results 515 adults were approached to participate in this study and the overall response rate was 96% (n = 496). 50% of the patients were using or have used at least 1 CAM therapy within the last 12 months. The 5 most commonly used therapies were massage (n = 106, 43%), vitamins (n = 85, 35%), health foods including dietary supplements (n = 56, 23%), acupressure (n = 51, 21%) and kampo (n = 46, 19%). The majority of CAM users (75%, n = 145) found their CAM treatment to be effective (95% CI = 68–81%). Patients who were more likely to use CAM were females (p = 0.003) and those with a high number of medical conditions (p = < 0.0001). Only a small proportion of patients reported their CAM use to their physician (42%, n = 74). There was no significant difference in CAM use for the different age groups (p = 0.85), education level (p = 0.30) and financial status (p = 0.82). Conclusion Patterns of CAM usage in the sample surveyed was high (50%). Despite this high prevalence rate and presumed acceptance of CAM in Japan, the reporting of CAM use by patients to their physicians was low (42%). It is therefore important that physicians are aware of the possibility that their patients may be using CAM and also increase their knowledge and understanding of these treatments.
- Published
- 2008
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
26. Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY):A multicentre, single-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial
- Author
-
Sivaprasad, Sobha, Prevost, A. Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Riddell, Amy, Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, Bainbridge, James, Tudor-Edwards, Rhiannon, Hopkins, David, and Hykin, Philip
- Abstract
Background: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of severe sight impairment in people with diabetes. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy has been managed by panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) for the past 40 years. We report the 1 year safety and efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept. Methods: In this phase 2b, single-blind, non-inferiority trial (CLARITY), adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes and previously untreated or post-laser treated active proliferative diabetic retinopathy were recruited from 22 UK ophthalmic centres. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to repeated intravitreal aflibercept (2 mg/0·05 mL at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks, and from week 12 patients were reviewed every 4 weeks and aflibercept injections were given as needed) or PRP standard care (single spot or mutlispot laser at baseline, fractionated fortnightly thereafter, and from week 12 patients were assessed every 8 weeks and treated with PRP as needed) for 52 weeks. Randomisation was by minimisation with a web-based computer generated system. Primary outcome assessors were masked optometrists. The treating ophthalmologists and participants were not masked. The primary outcome was defined as a change in best-corrected visual acuity at 52 weeks with a linear mixed-effect model that estimated adjusted treatment effects at both 12 weeks and 52 weeks, having excluded fluctuations in best corrected visual acuity owing to vitreous haemorrhage. This modified intention-to-treat analysis was reapplied to the per protocol participants. The non-inferiority margin was prespecified as -5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Safety was assessed in all participants. This trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number 32207582. Findings: We recruited 232 participants (116 per group) between Aug 22, 2014 and Nov 30, 2015. 221 participants (112 in aflibercept group, 109 in PRP group) contributed to the modified intention-to-treat model, and 210 participants (104 in aflibercept group and 106 in PRP group) within per protocol. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the modified intention-to-treat population (mean best corrected visual acuity difference 3·9 letters [95% CI 2·3-5·6], pInterpretation: Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were treated with intravitreal aflibercept had an improved outcome at 1 year compared with those treated with PRP standard care. Funding: The Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.
- Published
- 2017
27. Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial.
- Author
-
Hardeman, Wendy, Mitchell, Joanna, Pears, Sally, Van Emmenis, Miranda, Theil, Florence, Gc, Vijay S., Vasconcelos, Joana C., Westgate, Kate, Brage, Søren, Suhrcke, Marc, Griffin, Simon J., Kinmonth, Ann Louise, Wilson, Edward C. F., Prevost, A. Toby, Sutton, Stephen, and VBI Research Team
- Subjects
PHYSICAL activity ,MEDICAL screening ,NATIONAL health services ,PRIMARY care ,RANDOMIZED controlled trials ,NURSES' aides - Abstract
Background: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care.Methods and Findings: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment.Conclusions: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
28. Mechanistic Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Aflibercept in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: CLARITY Substudy
- Author
-
Nicholson, Luke, primary, Crosby-Nwaobi, Roxanne, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Prevost, A. Toby, additional, Ramu, Jayashree, additional, Riddell, Amy, additional, Bainbridge, James W., additional, Hykin, Philip G., additional, and Sivaprasad, Sobha, additional
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
29. Clinical efficacy and safety of a light mask for prevention of dark adaptation in treating and preventing progression of early diabetic macular oedema at 24 months (CLEOPATRA): a multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
- Author
-
Sivaprasad, Sobha, primary, Vasconcelos, Joana C, additional, Prevost, A Toby, additional, Holmes, Helen, additional, Hykin, Philip, additional, George, Sheena, additional, Murphy, Caroline, additional, Kelly, Joanna, additional, Arden, Geoffrey B, additional, Ahfat, Frank, additional, Bhatnagar, Ajay, additional, Narendran, Nirodhini, additional, Chavan, Randhir, additional, Cole, Abosede, additional, Crosby-Nwaobi, Roxanne, additional, Patrao, Namritha, additional, Menon, Deepthy, additional, Hogg, Chris, additional, Rubin, Gary, additional, Leitch-Devlin, Lauren, additional, Egan, Catherine, additional, Shah, Nisha, additional, Mansour, Tatiana, additional, Peto, Tunde, additional, Eleftheriadis, Haralabos, additional, Gibson, Joanathan, additional, Ghulakhszian, Arevik, additional, Vafidis, Gilli, additional, Hughes, Edward, additional, Jafree, Afsar, additional, Menon, Geeta, additional, Prakash, Priya, additional, Sandinha, Maria, additional, Smith, Richard, additional, Scanlon, Peter, additional, Chave, Steve, additional, Aldington, Steve, additional, Dale, Angela, additional, Hood, Gillian, additional, Hitman, Graham A, additional, Crabb, David, additional, Denniston, Alaistair, additional, Lewin, Douglas, additional, Grierson, Ian, additional, Walker, Sarah, additional, Sturt, Jackie, additional, and Sahu, Debendra, additional
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
30. Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial
- Author
-
Sivaprasad, Sobha, primary, Prevost, A Toby, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C, additional, Riddell, Amy, additional, Murphy, Caroline, additional, Kelly, Joanna, additional, Bainbridge, James, additional, Tudor-Edwards, Rhiannon, additional, Hopkins, David, additional, Hykin, Philip, additional, Bhatnagar, A, additional, Burton, B, additional, Chakravarthy, U, additional, Eleftheriadis, H, additional, Empeslidis, T, additional, Gale, R, additional, George, S, additional, Habib, M, additional, Kelly, S, additional, Lotery, A, additional, McKibbin, M, additional, Membrey, L, additional, Menon, G, additional, Mushtaq, B, additional, Nicholson, L, additional, Ramu, J, additional, Osoba, O, additional, Patel, J, additional, Prakash, P, additional, Purbrick, R, additional, Ross, A, additional, Stylianides, A, additional, Talks, J, additional, Harding, S, additional, Peto, T, additional, Yeo, S T, additional, Laidlaw, Alistair, additional, Amoaku, Winfried, additional, Hood, Gillian, additional, Hitman, Graham A, additional, Preece, Daniel, additional, Burns, Paul, additional, Walker, Sarah, additional, Mensah, Evelyn, additional, and Karia, Niral, additional
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
31. Clinical Effectiveness of Intravitreal Therapy With Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
- Author
-
Hykin, Philip, Prevost, A. Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Murphy, Caroline, Kelly, Joanna, Ramu, Jayashree, Hounsome, Barry, Yang, Yit, Harding, Simon P, Lotery, Andrew, Chakravarthy, Usha, Sivaprasad, Sobha, and LEAVO Study Group
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
32. Safety and patient response as indicated by biomarker changes to binding immunoglobulin protein in the phase I/IIA RAGULA clinical trial in rheumatoid arthritis
- Author
-
Kirkham, Bruce, primary, Chaabo, Khaldoun, additional, Hall, Christopher, additional, Garrood, Toby, additional, Mant, Timothy, additional, Allen, Elizabeth, additional, Vincent, Alexandra, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Prevost, Andrew T., additional, Panayi, Gabriel S., additional, and Corrigall, Valerie M., additional
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
33. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks (VBI Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
- Author
-
Mitchell, Joanna, Hardeman, Wendy, Pears, Sally, Vasconcelos, Joana C., Prevost, A. Toby, Wilson, Ed, Sutton, Stephen, and VBI Research Team
- Subjects
PHYSICAL activity measurement ,PHYSICALLY active people ,COST effectiveness ,RANDOMIZED controlled trials ,HEALTH ,CARDIOVASCULAR disease prevention ,NATIONAL health services ,HEALTH self-care ,PATIENT education ,BEHAVIOR ,ACTIGRAPHY ,CARDIOVASCULAR diseases ,COMPARATIVE studies ,EXERCISE ,EXPERIMENTAL design ,HEALTH behavior ,HEALTH status indicators ,RESEARCH methodology ,MEDICAL care costs ,MEDICAL cooperation ,RESEARCH protocols ,PREVENTIVE health services ,RESEARCH ,PRIMARY health care ,TIME ,EVALUATION research ,TREATMENT effectiveness ,ECONOMICS ,EQUIPMENT & supplies ,PSYCHOLOGY - Abstract
Background: Physical activity interventions that are targeted at individuals can be effective in encouraging people to be more physically active. However, most such interventions are too long or complex and not scalable to the general population. This trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention when delivered as part of preventative health checks in primary care (National Health Service (NHS) Health Check).Methods/design: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial is a two parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation and follow-up at 3 months. A total of 1,140 participants will be recruited from 23 primary care practices in the east of England. Participants eligible for an NHS Health Check and who are considered suitable to take part by their doctor and able to provide written informed consent are eligible for the trial. Participants are randomly assigned at the beginning of the NHS Health Check to either 1) the control arm, in which they receive only the NHS Health Check, or 2) the intervention arm, in which they receive the NHS Health Check plus 'Step It Up' (a very brief intervention that can be delivered in 5 minutes by nurses and/or healthcare assistants at the end of the Health Check). 'Step It Up' includes (1) a face-to-face discussion, including feedback on current activity level, recommendations for physical activity, and information on how to use a pedometer, set step goals, and monitor progress; (2) written material supporting the discussion and tips and links to further resources to help increase physical activity; and (3) a pedometer to wear and a step chart for monitoring progress. The primary outcome is accelerometer counts per minute at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the time spent in the different levels of physical activity, self-reported physical activity and economic measures. Trial recruitment is underway.Discussion: The VBI trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Step It Up intervention delivered during NHS Health Checks and will inform policy decisions about introducing very brief interventions into routine primary care practice.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN72691150 . Registered on 17 July 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
34. Bladder Cancer Diagnosis and Identification of Clinically Significant Disease by Combined Urinary Detection of Mcm5 and Nuclear Matrix Protein 22
- Author
-
Kelly, John D., primary, Dudderidge, Tim J., additional, Wollenschlaeger, Alex, additional, Okoturo, Odu, additional, Burling, Keith, additional, Tulloch, Fiona, additional, Halsall, Ian, additional, Prevost, Teresa, additional, Prevost, Andrew Toby, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Robson, Wendy, additional, Leung, Hing Y., additional, Vasdev, Nikhil, additional, Pickard, Robert S., additional, Williams, Gareth H., additional, and Stoeber, Kai, additional
- Published
- 2012
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
35. Oral contraceptive use and clinical outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis
- Author
-
Sena, Armando, primary, Couderc, Rémy, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C., additional, Ferret-Sena, Véronique, additional, and Pedrosa, Rui, additional
- Published
- 2012
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
36. Patterns of complementary and alternative medicine use amongst outpatients in Tokyo, Japan
- Author
-
Hori, Satoshi, primary, Mihaylov, Iordan, additional, Vasconcelos, Joana C, additional, and McCoubrie, Malcolm, additional
- Published
- 2008
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
37. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomized trial
- Author
-
Marteau, Theresa M., Griffin, Simon, Sutton, Stephen, Kinmonth, Ann Louise, Kellar, Ian, Sanderson, Simon, Parker, Michael, Mann, Eleanor, Prevost, A. Toby, and Vasconcelos, Joana C.
- Subjects
Diabetes -- Diagnosis ,Informed consent (Medical law) -- Research - Published
- 2010
38. Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial
- Author
-
Hardeman, Wendy, Mitchell, Joanna, Pears, Sally, Van Emmenis, Miranda, Theil, Florence, Gc, Vijay S, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Westgate, Kate, Brage, Søren, Suhrcke, Marc, Griffin, Simon J, Kinmonth, Ann Louise, Wilson, Edward CF, Prevost, A Toby, Sutton, Stephen, and VBI Research Team
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Time Factors ,Primary Health Care ,Cost-Benefit Analysis ,Fitness Trackers ,Health Care Costs ,Middle Aged ,Actigraphy ,Healthy Volunteers ,State Medicine ,3. Good health ,England ,Humans ,Female ,Healthy Lifestyle ,Exercise ,Aged - Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).
39. Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial
- Author
-
Hardeman, Wendy, Mitchell, Joanna, Pears, Sally, Van Emmenis, Miranda, Theil, Florence, Gc, Vijay S., Vasconcelos, Joana C., Westgate, Kate, Brage, Søren, Suhrcke, Marc, Griffin, Simon J., Kinmonth, Ann Louise, Wilson, Edward C. F., Prevost, A. Toby, Sutton, Stephen, and Team, On Behalf Of The VBI Research
- Subjects
Medicine and health sciences ,Research and analysis methods ,FOS: Social sciences ,Engineering and technology ,People and places ,FOS: Engineering and technology ,Social sciences ,3. Good health ,Research Article - Abstract
Background: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention (‘Step It Up’) delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. Methods and findings: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants’ mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI −18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study’s limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. Conclusions: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).
40. Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial
- Author
-
Hardeman, Wendy, Mitchell, Joanna, Pears, Sally, Van Emmenis, Miranda, Theil, Florence, Gc, Vijay S, Vasconcelos, Joana C, Westgate, Kate, Brage, Søren, Suhrcke, Marc, Griffin, Simon J, Kinmonth, Ann Louise, Wilson, Edward C F, Prevost, A Toby, and Sutton, Stephen
- Subjects
3. Good health - Abstract
BACKGROUND:The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS:In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).
41. Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial
- Author
-
A Toby Prevost, Stephen Sutton, Soren Brage, Joana C. Vasconcelos, Ann Louise Kinmonth, Simon J. Griffin, Florence Theil, Wendy Hardeman, Joanna Mitchell, Kate Westgate, Miranda Van Emmenis, Edward C. F. Wilson, Marc Suhrcke, Sally Pears, Vijay Gc, Hardeman, Wendy [0000-0002-6498-9407], Mitchell, Joanna [0000-0003-2138-3402], Pears, Sally [0000-0002-6417-1402], Gc, Vijay S [0000-0003-0365-2605], Vasconcelos, Joana C [0000-0001-7709-4058], Westgate, Kate [0000-0002-0283-3562], Brage, Søren [0000-0002-1265-7355], Suhrcke, Marc [0000-0001-7263-8626], Griffin, Simon J [0000-0002-2157-4797], Wilson, Edward CF [0000-0002-8369-1577], Prevost, A Toby [0000-0003-1723-0796], Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, Gc, Vijay S. [0000-0003-0365-2605], Vasconcelos, Joana C. [0000-0001-7709-4058], Griffin, Simon J. [0000-0002-2157-4797], Wilson, Edward C. F. [0000-0002-8369-1577], Prevost, A. Toby [0000-0003-1723-0796], and Wilson, Edward C F [0000-0002-8369-1577]
- Subjects
Male ,Time Factors ,Economics ,Health Care Providers ,Cost-Benefit Analysis ,Psychological intervention ,Fitness Trackers/economics ,Nurses ,Social Sciences ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Cardiovascular Medicine ,Primary Health Care/economics ,State Medicine ,law.invention ,0302 clinical medicine ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Public and Occupational Health ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Medical Personnel ,Cost–benefit analysis ,General Medicine ,Cost-effectiveness analysis ,Health Care Costs ,Middle Aged ,Healthy Volunteers ,3. Good health ,Actigraphy/economics ,Professions ,England ,Cardiovascular Diseases ,Medicine ,Engineering and Technology ,State Medicine/economics ,Female ,Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health ,Research Article ,Adult ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Drug Research and Development ,Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ,Fitness Trackers ,Research and Analysis Methods ,03 medical and health sciences ,Intervention (counseling) ,medicine ,Humans ,Clinical Trials ,Healthy Lifestyle ,Exercise ,Primary Care ,Aged ,NHS health check ,Pharmacology ,Primary Health Care ,business.industry ,Physical Activity ,Actigraphy ,Randomized Controlled Trials ,Economic Analysis ,Health Care ,Pedometer ,People and Places ,Physical therapy ,Population Groupings ,Brief intervention ,Electronics ,Accelerometers ,Clinical Medicine ,business - Abstract
Background The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention (‘Step It Up’) delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. Methods and findings The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants’ mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI −18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study’s limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. Conclusions In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150)., Wendy Hardeman and colleagues investigate a short physical activity intervention in a randomized controlled trial., Author summary Why was this study done? Systematic reviews support the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief (up to 30 minutes) physical activity interventions in primary care and the effectiveness of intensive pedometer interventions. There is a need for briefer interventions in primary care, where time is limited but potential reach is large. However, the reviews show uncertainty about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of very brief (up to 5 minutes) interventions in primary care. Until now, there have been no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a very brief pedometer-based intervention to increase physical activity in primary care. What did the researchers do and find? We randomly assigned participants who attended preventive health checks in primary care (National Health Service [NHS] Health Checks) to the health check alone or additionally a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered by practice nurses or healthcare assistants. We measured physical activity objectively at 3 months after the intervention. Our large trial found no benefit of a very brief physical activity intervention in the context of preventive health checks in primary care. Despite the intervention being apparently simple and very brief, fidelity of delivery was suboptimal. Trial participants were more active than might have been expected. The economic evaluation shows a small added cost for a small and uncertain benefit. What do these findings mean? The absence of a positive effect of a very brief physical activity intervention challenges the commissioning of such interventions in this context. Primary care practitioners should continue to opportunistically provide very brief advice about physical activity.
- Published
- 2020
42. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial.
- Author
-
Marteau TM, Mann E, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Kellar I, Sanderson S, Parker M, Griffin S, Sutton S, and Kinmonth AL
- Subjects
- Adult, Aged, Cluster Analysis, Decision Making, Family Practice, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Patient Acceptance of Health Care psychology, Risk Factors, Choice Behavior, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 diagnosis, Informed Consent, Patient Acceptance of Health Care statistics & numerical data
- Abstract
Objective: To compare the effect of an invitation promoting informed choice for screening with a standard invitation on attendance and motivation to engage in preventive action., Design: Randomised controlled trial., Setting: Four English general practices., Participants: 1272 people aged 40-69 years, at risk for diabetes, identified from practice registers using a validated risk score and invited to attend for screening., Intervention: Intervention was a previously validated invitation to inform the decision to attend screening, presenting diabetes as a serious potential problem, and providing details of possible costs and benefits of screening and treatment in text and pie charts. This was compared with a brief, standard invitation simply describing diabetes as a serious potential problem., Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was attendance for screening. The secondary outcome measures were intention to make changes to lifestyle and satisfaction with decisions made among attenders., Results: The primary end point was analysed for all 1272 participants. 55.8% (353/633) of those in the informed choice group attended for screening, compared with 57.6% (368/639) in the standard invitation group (mean difference -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -7.3% to 3.6%; P=0.51). Attendance was lower among the more deprived group (most deprived third 47.5% v least deprived third 64.3%; P<0.001). Interaction between deprivation and effect of invitation type on attendance was not significant. Among attenders, intention to change behaviour was strong and unaffected by invitation type., Conclusions: Providing information to support choice did not adversely affect attendance for screening for diabetes. Those from more socially deprived groups were, however, less likely to attend, regardless of the type of invitation received. Further attention to invitation content alone is unlikely to achieve equity in uptake of preventive services., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 73125647.
- Published
- 2010
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.