SummaryBackgroundInfliximab and ciclosporin are of similar efficacy in treating acute severe ulcerative colitis, but there has been no comparative evaluation of their relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.MethodsIn this mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial, we recruited consenting patients aged 18 years or older at 52 district general and teaching hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been admitted, unscheduled, with severe ulcerative colitis and failed to respond to intravenous hydrocortisone within about 5 days. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg intravenous infusion given over 2 h at baseline, and again at 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the first infusion) or ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day by continuous infusion for up to 7 days, followed by twice-daily tablets delivering 5·5 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks). Randomisation used a web-based password-protected site, with a dynamic algorithm to generate allocations on request, thus protecting against investigator preference or other subversion, while ensuring that each trial group was balanced by centre, which was the only stratification used. Local investigators and participants were aware of the treatment allocated, but the chief investigator and analysts were masked. Analysis was by treatment allocated. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival—ie, the area under the curve (AUC) of scores from the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaire (CUCQ) completed by participants at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, then every 6 months from 1 year to 3 years. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN22663589.FindingsBetween June 17, 2010, and Feb 26, 2013, 270 patients were recruited. 135 patients were allocated to the infliximab group and 135 to the ciclosporin group. 121 (90%) patients in each group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between groups in quality-adjusted survival (mean AUC 564·0 [SD 241·9] in the infliximab group vs 587·0 [226·2] in the ciclosporin group; mean adjusted difference 7·9 [95% CI −22·0 to 37·8]; p=0·603). Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes of CUCQ scores, EQ-5D, or SF-6D scores; frequency of colectomy (55 [41%] of 135 patients in the infliximab group vs 65 [48%] of 135 patients in the ciclosporin group; p=0·223); or mean time to colectomy (811 [95% CI 707–912] days in the infliximab group vs 744 [638–850] days in the ciclosporin group; p=0·251). There were no differences in serious adverse reactions (16 reactions in 14 participants receiving infliximab vs ten in nine patients receiving ciclosporin); serious adverse events (21 in 16 patients vs 25 in 17 patients); or deaths (three in the infliximab group vs none in the ciclosporin group).InterpretationThere was no significant difference between ciclosporin and infliximab in clinical effectiveness.FundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objectives To evaluate the effect of training primary care health professionals in behaviour change counselling on the proportion of patients self reporting change in four risk behaviours (smoking, alcohol use, exercise, and healthy eating).Design Cluster randomised trial with general practices as the unit of randomisation.Setting General practices in Wales.Participants 53 general practitioners and practice nurses from 27 general practices (one each at all but one practice) recruited 1827 patients who screened positive for at least one risky behaviour.Intervention Behaviour change counselling was developed from motivational interviewing to enable clinicians to enhance patients’ motivation to change health related behaviour. Clinicians were trained using a blended learning programme called Talking Lifestyles.Main outcome measures Proportion of patients who reported making beneficial changes in at least one of the four risky behaviours at three months.Results 1308 patients from 13 intervention and 1496 from 14 control practices were approached: 76% and 72% respectively agreed to participate, with 831 (84%) and 996 (92%) respectively screening eligible for an intervention. There was no effect on the primary outcome (beneficial change in behaviour) at three months (362 (44%) v 404 (41%), odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.39)) or on biochemical or biometric measures at 12 months. More patients who had consulted with trained clinicians recalled consultation discussion about a health behaviour (724/795 (91%) v 531/966 (55%), odds ratio 12.44 (5.85 to 26.46)) and intended to change (599/831 (72%) v 491/996 (49%), odds ratio 2.88 (2.05 to 4.05)). More intervention practice patients reported making an attempt to change (328 (39%) v 317 (32%), odds ratio 1.40 (1.15 to 1.70)), a sustained behaviour change at three months (288 (35%) v 280 (28%), odds ratio 1.36 (1.11 to 1.65)), and reported slightly greater improvements in healthy eating at three and 12 months, plus improved activity at 12 months. Training cost £1597 per practice.Discussion Training primary care clinicians in behaviour change counselling using a brief blended learning programme did not increase patients reported beneficial behaviour change at three months or improve biometric and a biochemical measure at 12 months, but it did increase patients’ recollection of discussing behaviour change with their clinicians, intentions to change, attempts to change, and perceptions of having made a lasting change at three months. Enduring behaviour change and improvements in biometric measures are unlikely after a single routine consultation with a clinician trained in behaviour change counselling without additional intervention.Trial registration ISRCTN 22495456

BackgroundThe efficacy of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is proven, but there has been no comparative evaluation of effectiveness.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating steroid-resistant acute severe UC.MethodBetween May 2010 and February 2013 we recruited 270 participants from 52 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to an open-label parallel-group, pragmatic randomised trial. Consented patients admitted with severe colitis completed baseline quality-of-life questionnaires before receiving intravenous hydrocortisone. If they failed to respond within about 5 days, and met other inclusion criteria, we invited them to participate and used a web-based adaptive randomisation algorithm to allocate them in equal proportions between 5 mg/kg of intravenous infliximab at 0, 2 and 6 weeks or 2 mg/kg/day of intravenous ciclosporin for 7 days followed by 5.5 mg/kg/day of oral ciclosporin until 12 weeks from randomisation. Further treatment was at the discretion of physicians responsible for clinical management. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival (QAS): the area under the curve (AUC) of scores derived from Crohn’s and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaires completed by participants at 3 and 6 months, and then 6-monthly over 1–3 years, more frequently after surgery. Secondary outcomes collected simultaneously included European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores and NHS resource use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Blinding was possible only for data analysts. We interviewed 20 trial participants and 23 participating professionals. Funded data collection finished in March 2014. Most participants consented to complete annual questionnaires and for us to analyse their routinely collected health data over 10 years.ResultsThe 135 participants in each group were well matched at baseline. In 121 participants analysed in each group, we found no significant difference between infliximab and ciclosporin in QAS [mean difference in AUC/day 0.0297 favouring ciclosporin, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.0088 to 0.0682;p = 0.129]; EQ-5D scores (quality-adjusted life-year mean difference 0.021 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI –0.032 to 0.096;p = 0.350); Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions scores (mean difference 0.0051 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI –0.0250 to 0.0353;p = 0.737). There was no statistically significant difference in colectomy rates [odds ratio (OR) 1.350 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.832 to 2.188;p = 0.223]; numbers of serious adverse reactions (event ratio = 0.938 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.590 to 1.493;p = 0.788); participants with serious adverse reactions (OR 0.660 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.282 to 1.546;p = 0.338); numbers of serious adverse events (event ratio 1.075 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.603 to 1.917;p = 0.807); participants with serious adverse events (OR 0.999 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.114;p = 0.998); deaths (all three who died received infliximab;p = 0.247) or concomitant use of immunosuppressants. The lower cost of ciclosporin led to lower total NHS costs (mean difference –£5632, 95% CI –£8305 to –£2773;p < 0.001). Interviews highlighted the debilitating effect of UC; participants were more positive about infliximab than ciclosporin. Professionals reported advantages and disadvantages with both drugs, but nurses disliked the intravenous ciclosporin.ConclusionsTotal cost to the NHS was considerably higher for infliximab than ciclosporin. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in clinical effectiveness, colectomy rates, incidence of SAEs or reactions, or mortality, when measured 1–3 years post treatment. To assess long-term outcome participants will be followed up for 10 years post randomisation, using questionnaires and routinely collected data. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of new anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs and formulations of ciclosporin.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN22663589.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/44/04. The contractual start date was in September 2010. The draft report began editorial review in April 2014 and was accepted for publication in September 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by...

IntroductionMany patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) present with acute exacerbations needing hospital admission. Treatment includes intravenous steroids but up to 40% of patients do not respond and require emergency colectomy. Mortality following emergency colectomy has fallen, but 10% of patients still die within 3 months of surgery. Infliximab and ciclosporin, both immunosuppressive drugs, offer hope for treating steroid-resistant UC as there is evidence of their short-term effectiveness. As there is little long-term evidence, this pragmatic randomised trial, known as Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: a Trial (CONSTRUCT), aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin for steroid-resistant UC.Methods and analysisBetween May 2010 and February 2013, 52 UK centres recruited 270 patients admitted with acute severe UC who failed to respond to intravenous steroids but did not need surgery. We allocated them at random in equal proportions between infliximab and ciclosporin.The primary clinical outcome measure is quality-adjusted survival, that is survival weighted by Crohn's and Colitis Questionnaire (CCQ) participants’ scores, analysed by Cox regression. Secondary outcome measures include: the CCQ—an extension of the validated but community-focused UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) to include patients with acute severe colitis and stoma; two general quality of life measures—EQ-5D and SF-12; mortality; survival weighted by EQ-5D; emergency and planned colectomies; readmissions; incidence of adverse events including malignancies, serious infections and renal disorders; disease activity; National Health Service (NHS) costs and patient-borne costs. Interviews investigate participants’ views on therapies for acute severe UC and healthcare professionals’ views on the two drugs and their administration.Ethics and disseminationThe Research Ethics Committee for Wales has given ethical approval (Ref. 08/MRE09/42); each participating Trust or Health Board has given NHS Reseach & Development approval. We plan to present trial findings at international and national conferences and publish in high-impact peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 22663589; EudraCT number: 2008-001968-36