SummaryBackgroundThe omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile. Therefore, we aimed to test the efficacy of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination and compared with a placebo, in individuals with sporadic colorectal neoplasia detected at colonoscopy.MethodsIn a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial, patients aged 55–73 years who were identified during colonoscopy as being at high risk in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP; ≥3 adenomas if at least one was ≥10 mm in diameter or ≥5 adenomas if these were <10 mm in diameter) were recruited from 53 BCSP endoscopy units in England, UK. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) using a secure web-based server to receive 2 g EPA-free fatty acid (FFA) per day (either as the FFA or triglyceride), 300 mg aspirin per day, both treatments in combination, or placebo for 12 months using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by BCSP site. Research staff and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR; the proportion of participants with any adenoma) at 1 year surveillance colonoscopy analysed in all participants with observable follow-up data using a so-called at-the-margins approach, adjusted for BCSP site and repeat endoscopy at baseline. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN05926847.FindingsBetween Nov 11, 2011, and June 10, 2016, 709 participants were randomly assigned to four treatment groups (176 to placebo, 179 to EPA, 177 to aspirin, and 177 to EPA plus aspirin). Adenoma outcome data were available for 163 (93%) patients in the placebo group, 153 (85%) in the EPA group, 163 (92%) in the aspirin group, and 161 (91%) in the EPA plus aspirin group. The ADR was 61% (100 of 163) in the placebo group, 63% (97 of 153) in the EPA group, 61% (100 of 163) in the aspirin group, and 61% (98 of 161) in the EPA plus aspirin group, with no evidence of any effect for EPA (risk ratio [RR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·87 to 1·12; risk difference −0·9%, −8·8 to 6·9; p=0·81) or aspirin (RR 0·99 (0·87 to 1·12; risk difference −0·6%, −8·5 to 7·2; p=0·88). EPA and aspirin were well tolerated (78 [44%] of 176 had ≥1 adverse event in the placebo group compared with 82 [46%] in the EPA group, 68 [39%] in the aspirin group, and 76 [45%] in the EPA plus aspirin group), although the number of gastrointestinal adverse events was increased in the EPA alone group at 146 events (compared with 85 in the placebo group, 86 in the aspirin group, and 68 in the aspirin plus placebo group). Six upper-gastrointestinal bleeding events were reported across the treatment groups (two in the EPA group, three in the aspirin group, and one in the placebo group).InterpretationNeithe...

BackgroundContextually appropriate interventions delivered by primary maternal care providers (PMCPs) might be effective in reducing the treatment gap for perinatal depression.AimTo compare high-intensity treatment (HIT) with low-intensity treatment (LIT) for perinatal depression.MethodCluster randomised clinical trial, conducted in Ibadan, Nigeria between 18 June 2013 and 11 December 2015 in 29 maternal care clinics allocated by computed-generated random sequence (15 HIT; 14 LIT). Interventions were delivered individually to antenatal women with DSM-IV (1994) major depression by trained PMCPs. LIT consisted of the basic psychosocial treatment specifications in the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme – Intervention Guide. HIT comprised LIT plus eight weekly problem-solving therapy sessions with possible additional sessions determined by scores on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). The primary outcome was remission of depression at 6 months postpartum (EPDS < 6).ResultsThere were 686 participants; 452 and 234 in HIT and LIT arms, respectively, with both groups similar at baseline. Follow-up assessments, completed on 85%, showed remission rates of 70% with HIT and 66% with LIT: risk difference 4% (95% CI −4.1%, 12.0%), adjusted odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.73, 1.72). HIT was more effective for severe depression (odds ratio 2.29; 95% CI 1.01, 5.20; P = 0.047) and resulted in a higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding. Infant outcomes, cost-effectiveness and adverse events were similar.ConclusionsExcept among severely depressed perinatal women, we found no strong evidence to recommend high-intensity in preference to low-intensity psychological intervention in routine primary maternal care.Declaration of interestsNone.

IntroductionImmune activation has been reported in the mucosa of IBS patients with diarrhoea (IBS-D), and some small studies have suggested that mesalazine may reduce symptoms. We performed a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial of 2 g mesalazine twice daily versus placebo for 3 months in patients with Rome III criteria IBS-D. Primary outcome was daily average stool frequency during weeks 11–12; secondary outcomes were abdominal pain, stool consistency, urgency and satisfactory relief of IBS symptoms.MethodsParticipants were randomised after a 2-week baseline stool diary. All participants completed a 12-week stool diary and at the end of each week recorded the presence of ‘satisfactory relief of IBS symptoms’.Results136 patients with IBS-D (82 women, 54 men) were randomised, 10 patients withdrew from each group. Analysis by intention to treat showed the daily average stool frequency during weeks 11 and 12 were mean (SD), 2.8 (1.2) in mesalazine and 2.7 (1.9) in the placebo group with no significant group difference, (95% CI) 0.1 (−0.33 to 0.53), p=0.66. Mesalazine did not improve abdominal pain, stool consistency nor percentage with satisfactory relief compared with placebo during the last two-weeks follow-up.ConclusionsThis study does not support any clinically meaningful benefit or harm of mesalazine compared with placebo in unselected patients with IBS-D. More precise subtyping based on underlying disease mechanisms is needed to allow more effective targeting of treatment in IBS.Trial registration numberNCT01316718.