Suppr超能文献

团体认知康复对多发性硬化症患者生活质量的心理影响的随机对照试验。

Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT.

机构信息

Division of Rehabilitation and Ageing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2020 Jan;24(4):1-182. doi: 10.3310/hta24040.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation.

SETTING

The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18-69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant.

RESULTS

Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.3;  = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.1;  = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.3, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -4.4, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.4, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to -1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -5.5, 95% confidence interval -9.6 to -1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -5.9 to -0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means -£574.93, 95% confidence interval -£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported.

LIMITATIONS

The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

摘要

背景

多发性硬化症患者存在记忆和注意力问题。认知康复的效果尚未确定。

目的

评估认知康复方案对多发性硬化症患者的临床效果和成本效益。

设计

这是一项多中心、随机对照试验,参与者按照 6:5 的比例随机分配接受认知康复加常规护理或常规护理。参与者在随机分组后 6 个月和 12 个月进行评估。

地点

试验在医院神经病学诊所和社区服务中进行。

参与者

患有认知问题、年龄在 18-69 岁之间、能够前往参加小组课程并同意知情的多发性硬化症患者。

干预措施

干预措施是每周由一名助理心理学家为 4 到 6 名参与者提供为期 10 周的小组认知康复方案。

主要结局指标

12 个月时的多发性硬化症影响量表-心理分量表是主要结局指标。次要结局指标包括日常记忆问卷、30 项一般健康问卷、欧洲五维健康量表-5 维度版本和参与者的服务使用问卷、日常记忆问卷-相对版本和参与者的亲属或朋友的修正照顾者负担指数的结果。

结果

在 449 名随机分组的参与者中,245 名被分配到认知康复组(干预组),204 名被分配到常规护理组(对照组)。其中,干预组中有 214 名,对照组中有 173 名被纳入主要分析。在 12 个月的随访中,两组之间多发性硬化症影响量表-心理分量表评分没有临床重要差异(调整后的平均差异-0.6,95%置信区间-1.5 至 0.3;  = 0.20)。在随访时,两组之间在认知能力、疲劳、就业或照顾者负担方面没有重要差异。然而,两组之间在 6 个月时多发性硬化症影响量表-心理分量表评分(调整后的平均差异-0.9,95%置信区间-1.7 至-0.1;  = 0.03)和参与者在 6 个月和 12 个月时日常记忆问卷上的日常记忆(调整后的平均差异-5.3,95%置信区间-8.7 至-1.9 和调整后的平均差异-4.4,95%置信区间-7.8 至-0.9)以及亲属在 6 个月和 12 个月时的日常记忆问卷上的日常记忆(调整后的平均差异-5.4,95%置信区间-9.1 至-1.7 和调整后的平均差异-5.5,95%置信区间-9.6 至-1.5)方面存在差异,这对认知康复组有利。在 6 个月和 12 个月时的 30 项一般健康问卷上的情绪也存在差异(调整后的平均差异-3.4,95%置信区间-5.9 至-0.8 和调整后的平均差异-3.4,95%置信区间-6.2 至-0.6),这对认知康复组有利。一项定性分析表明,干预措施有一定的益处。在成本(调整后的平均差异-£574.93,95%置信区间-£1878.93 至 £729.07)或质量调整生命年增益(调整后的平均差异 0.00,95%置信区间-0.02 至 0.02)方面没有证据表明存在差异。没有安全问题,也没有报告死亡。

局限性

试验包括了一组日常生活中认知问题相对严重的参与者。该试验没有足够的能力进行亚组分析。参与者无法对治疗分配进行盲法。

结论

该认知康复方案对多发性硬化症患者的生活质量没有长期益处。

未来工作

未来的研究应评估哪些人可能受益于认知康复。

试验注册

当前对照试验 ISRCTN09697576。

资金

该项目由英国国家卫生研究院健康技术评估计划资助,将在 ;第 24 卷,第 4 期全文发表。请访问英国国家卫生研究院期刊图书馆网站,以获取更多项目信息。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验