Objective To assess the impact of exercise referral schemes on physical activity and health outcomes.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and ongoing trial registries up to October 2009. We also checked study references.Study selection Design: randomised controlled trials or non-randomised controlled (cluster or individual) studies published in peer review journals. Population: sedentary individuals with or without medical diagnosis. Exercise referral schemes defined as: clear referrals by primary care professionals to third party service providers to increase physical activity or exercise, physical activity or exercise programmes tailored to individuals, and initial assessment and monitoring throughout programmes. Comparators: usual care, no intervention, or alternative exercise referral schemes.Results Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, comparing exercise referral schemes with usual care (six trials), alternative physical activity intervention (two), and an exercise referral scheme plus a self determination theory intervention (one). Compared with usual care, follow-up data for exercise referral schemes showed an increased number of participants who achieved 90-150 minutes of physical activity of at least moderate intensity per week (pooled relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence intervals 1.03 to 1.30) and a reduced level of Correspondence to: T Pavey toby.pavey@pcmd.ac.uk Extra material supplied by the author (see http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6462/suppl/DC1) Web appendix 1: Literature search strategies Web appendix 2: Summary of excluded studies from systematic review Web figure 1: Meta-analysis of patients' minutes spent in physical activity of at least moderate intensity per week, at 6-12 month follow-up Web figure 2: Meta-analysis of patients' estimated energy expenditure (kcal/kg per day; from self reports) during exercise referral schemes versus usual care, at 6-12 month follow-up Web figure 3: Meta-analysis of patients' total physical activity per week, at 6-12 month follow-up Web figure 4: Meta-analysis of patients' estimated energy expenditure (kcal/kg per day; from self reports during exercise referral schemes versus alternative physical activity interventions, at 6-12 month follow-up Web Evidence of a between group difference in physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity or in other health outcomes was inconsistent at follow-up. We did not find any difference in outcomes between exercise referral schemes and the other two comparator groups. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with specific medical diagnoses. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality and nature of the exercise referral schemes across studies might have contributed to the inconsistency in outcome findings.Conclusions Considerable uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of exercise referral schemes for increasing physical activity, fitness, or health indi...

IntroductionThe Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) trial is part of a research programme designed to develop and evaluate a health professional facilitated, home-based, self-help rehabilitation intervention to improve self-care and health-related quality of life in people with heart failure and their caregivers. The trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in patients with systolic heart failure and impact on the outcomes of their caregivers.Methods and analysisA parallel two group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group) in 216 patients with systolic heart failure (ejection fraction <45%) and their caregivers. The intervention comprises a self-help manual delivered by specially trained facilitators over a 12-week period. The primary outcome measure is patients’ disease-specific health-related quality of life measured using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at 12 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes include survival and heart failure related hospitalisation, blood biomarkers, psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity, other measures of quality of life, patient safety and the quality of life, psychological well-being and perceived burden of caregivers at 4, 6 and 12 months’ follow-up. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery and explore potential mediators and moderators of changes in health-related quality of life in intervention and control group patients. Qualitative studies will describe patient and caregiver experiences of the intervention. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care versus usual care alone in patients with systolic heart failure.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the North West—Lancaster Research Ethics Committee (ref 14/NW/1351). Findings will be disseminated via journals and presentations to publicise the research to clinicians, commissioners and service users.Trial registration numberISRCTN86234930; Pre-results.

BACKGROUND: Two new agents have recently been licensed for use in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Europe. This paper aims to systematically review the evidence from all available randomised clinical trials of sunitinib and bevacizumab (in combination with interferon-a (IFN-a)) in the treatment of advanced metastatic RCC. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed in six electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies were searched for further relevant studies. Individual conference proceedings were searched using their online interfaces. Studies were selected according to the predefined criteria. All randomised clinical trials of sunitinib or bevacizumab in combination with IFN for treating advanced metastatic RCC in accordance with the European licensed indication were included. Study selection, data extraction, validation and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers with disagreements being settled by discussion. The effects of sunitinib and bevacizumab (in combination with IFN-a) on progression-free survival were compared indirectly using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) sampling in Win BUGS, with IFN as a common comparator. RESULTS: Three studies were included. Median progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with both interventions (from approximately 5 months to between 8 and 11 months) compared with IFN. Overall survival was also prolonged, compared with IFN, although the published data are not fully mature. Indirect comparison suggests that sunitinib is superior to bevacizumab plus IFN in terms of progression-free survival (hazard ratios 0.796; 95% CI 0.63 -1.0; P ¼ 0.0272). CONCLUSION: There is evidence to suggest that treatment with sunitinib and treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone in patients with metastatic RCC.

No abstract

IntroductionThe Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure in patients with Heart Failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (REACH-HFpEF) pilot trial is part of a research programme designed to develop and evaluate a facilitated, home-based, self-help rehabilitation intervention to improve self-care and quality of life (QoL) in heart failure patients and their caregivers. We will assess the feasibility of a definitive trial of the REACH-HF intervention in patients with HFpEF and their caregivers. The impact of the REACH-HF intervention on echocardiographic outcomes and bloodborne biomarkers will also be assessed.Methods and analysisA single-centre parallel two-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 1:1 individual allocation to the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control) in 50 HFpEF patients and their caregivers. The REACH-HF intervention comprises a REACH-HF manual with supplementary tools, delivered by trained facilitators over 12 weeks. A mixed methods approach will be used to assess estimation of recruitment and retention rates; fidelity of REACH-HF manual delivery; identification of barriers to participation and adherence to the intervention and study protocol; feasibility of data collection and outcome burden. We will assess the variance in study outcomes to inform a definitive study sample size and assess methods for the collection of resource use and intervention delivery cost data to develop the cost-effectiveness analyses framework for any future trial. Patient outcomes collected at baseline, 4 and 6 months include QoL, psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity and HF-related hospitalisation. Caregiver outcomes will also be assessed, and a substudy will evaluate impact of the REACH-HF manual on resting global cardiovascular function and bloodborne biomarkers in HFpEF patients.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (Ref: 15/ES/0036). Findings will be disseminated via journals and presentations to clinicians, commissioners and service users.Trial registration numberISRCTN78539530; Pre-results .