Acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is devastating with a 1 month mortality rate of ~40%. Cerebral oedema can complicate acute ICH and is associated with poor outcome. In patients with large ICH, the accompanying swelling increases mass effect and causes brain herniation. Mannitol, an osmotic diuretic, is used to treat cerebral oedema after traumatic brain injury, but its safety and efficacy in ICH is unclear. We aim to assess the feasibility of a phase II randomised, controlled trial of mannitol in patients with ICH with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema to inform a definitive trial.

The mannitol for cerebral oedema after acute intracerebral haemorrhage trial (MACE-ICH) aims to include 45 ICH participants from 10 UK sites with estimated largest diameter of haematoma volume >2 cm, presenting within 72 hours of onset with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema (limited Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)8) with or without mass effect. Participants will be randomised (1:1:1) to 1 g/kg 10% single-dose intravenous mannitol, 1 g/kg 10% mannitol followed by a second dose at 24 hours, or standard care alone. Outcome assessors will be masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes include proportion of patients approached being randomised, participants receiving allocated treatment, recruitment rate, treatment adherence and follow-up. Secondary outcomes include serum electrolytes and osmolality at days 1–2; change in ICH and oedema volume at day 5; number of participants who developed urinary tract infection, GCS and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at day 5±2; length of hospital stay, discharge destination and death up to day 28; death and death or dependency by day 180 and disability (Barthel Index), quality of life (EuroQol, 5-D) and cognition (telephone mini-mental state examination) at day 180.

MACE-ICH received ethics approval from the East Midlands-Leicester Central research ethics committee (22/EM/0242). The trial is funded by a National Institute for Health and Care Research RfPB grant (203080). The results will be published in an academic journal and disseminated through academic conferences and patient support groups. Reporting will be in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations.

ISRCTN15383301; EUDRACT 2022-000283-22.

Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) represents a severe and debilitating condition characterised by inadequate blood supply to the extremities, leading to acute and persistent pain, ulceration and a heightened risk of limb loss. Patients with CLTI often experience chronic pain that significantly impairs their quality of life. The pain experienced by patients with CLTI can be complex and challenging to manage, requiring a refined approach to balance analgesic efficacy with potential adverse pharmacological effects and pre-existing, competing comorbidities. This systematic review protocol aims to explore, critically assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological and locoregional analgesic approaches for managing pain occurring secondary to CLTI.

The methods will be performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Five electronic databases will be searched. At least two reviewers will perform study screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Any disagreements will be arbitrated by an additional independent reviewer. Randomised studies, observational cohort studies and case series consisting of four or more patients will be included. Grey literature will be excluded. The primary outcome will be the effectiveness of analgesia. Secondary outcomes will include adverse effects of analgesia and functional outcomes. Where the data allow, appropriate quantitative synthesis methods will be pursued.

This systematic review will not involve primary data collection; thus, no ethical approval is required. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conferences.

CRD42024561800

The use of e-health interventions has grown in demand due to their accessibility, low implementation costs and their potential to improve the health and well-being of people across a large geographical area. Despite these potential benefits, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of self-guided e-health interventions. The aim of the study was to compare the cost and consequences of ‘iSupport’, an e-health intervention to reduce mental health issues in dementia carers.

A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) of a multi-centre, single-blind randomised controlled trial of iSupport. The CCA was conducted from a public sector (National Health Service, social care and local authority) perspective plus a wider societal perspective. Delivery costs of iSupport were collected using a bottom-up micro-costing approach.

352 participants were recruited from three centres in England, Wales and Scotland.

Participants eligible for inclusion were adults over the age of 18 years who self-identified as an unpaid carer with at least 6 months of experience caring for an individual with a diagnosis of dementia. Between 12 November 2021 and 31 March 2023, 2332 carers were invited to take part in the study. 352 participants were randomised: 175 randomised to the iSupport intervention group and 177 to the usual care control group. The mean age of participants in the intervention and control groups was 63 and 62, respectively.

The CCA presented the disaggregated costs and health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQol five-dimension.

There was no significant difference in generic health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L (p=0.67). Both groups reported higher mean costs between baseline and 6 months, but the change in costs was significantly lower in the intervention group. Between baseline and 6 months, the mean change in total resource use costs from the public sector perspective was significantly different between groups (p=0.003, r=–0.161) reporting a mean change per participant of £146 (95% CI: –33 to 342) between the intervention and control groups. From the wider societal perspective, there was no significant difference (p=0.23) in the mean change in total resource use and informal care costs between the two groups from baseline to 6 months.

Use of iSupport was associated with reduced health and social care resource use costs for carers compared with care-as-usual. Self-guided e-health interventions for dementia carers may have the potential to reduce health and social care resource use and wider societal costs, but evidence relating to their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking.

ISRCTN17420703.