Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for People with Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycaemia Persisting Despite Optimised Self-care (HARPdoc): protocol for a group randomised controlled trial of a novel intervention addressing cognitions.

INTRODUCTION: Severe hypoglycaemia (SH), when blood glucose falls too low to support brain function, is the most feared acute complication of insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). 10% of people with T1DM contribute nearly 70% of all episodes, with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) a major risk factor. People with IAH may be refractory to conventional approaches to reduce SH, with evidence for cognitive barriers to hypoglycaemia avoidance. This paper describes the protocol for the Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for People with Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycaemia Persisting Despite Optimised Self-care (HARPdoc) study, a trial to assess the impact on hypoglycaemia experience of a novel intervention that addresses cognitive barriers to hypoglycaemia avoidance, compared with an existing control intervention, recommended by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised parallel two-arm trial of two group therapies: HARPdoc versus Blood Glucose Awareness Training, among 96 adults with T1DM and problematic hypoglycaemia, despite attendance at education with or without technology use, in four centres providing specialist T1DM services. The primary outcome will be the SH rate at 12 and/or 24 months after randomisation to either course. Secondary outcomes include rates of SH requiring parenteral therapy, involving unconsciousness or needing emergency services; hypoglycaemia awareness status, overall diabetes control and quality of life measures. An implementation study to evaluate how the interventions are delivered and how implementation impacts on clinical effectiveness is planned as a parallel study, with its own protocol. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the London Dulwich Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority, National Health Service R&D and the Institutional Review Board of the Joslin Diabetes Center in the USA. Study findings will be disseminated to study participants and through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, including user groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCY02940873; Pre-results.

The geko™ electro-stimulation device for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a NICE medical technology guidance.

The geko™ device is a single-use, battery-powered, neuromuscular electrostimulation device that aims to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected the geko™ device for evaluation, and invited the manufacturer, Firstkind Ltd, to submit clinical and economic evidence. King's Technology Evaluation Centre, an External Assessment Centre (EAC) commissioned by the NICE, independently assessed the evidence submitted. The sponsor submitted evidence related to the geko™ device and, in addition, included studies of other related devices as further clinical evidence to support a link between increased blood flow and VTE prophylaxis. The EAC assessed this evidence, conducted its own systematic review and concluded that there is currently limited direct evidence that geko™ prevents VTE. The sponsor's cost model is based on the assumption that patients with an underlying VTE risk and subsequently treated with geko™ will experience a reduction in their baseline risk. The EAC assessed this cost model but questioned the validity of some model assumptions. Using the EACs revised cost model, the cost savings for geko™ prophylaxis against a 'no prophylaxis' strategy were estimated as £197 per patient. Following a second public consultation, taking into account a change in the original draft recommendations, the NICE medical technologies guidance MTG19 was issued in June 2014. This recommended the adoption of the geko™ for use in people with a high risk of VTE and when other mechanical/pharmacological methods of prophylaxis are impractical or contraindicated in selected patients within the National Health Service in England.